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

[d4m10n]

If "going around being a woman" relates to societal expectations then how could that mean anything else than conforming to those of expectations?

It could mean not conforming to them, which (in my limited experience) takes even more effort.

There would actually be a proper definition if we said something like "a woman is someone who performs femininity" . . .

How about someone who is generally expected to conform to feminine norms, regardless of the quality of her performance?

 

[caveman1917]

It could mean not conforming to them, which (in my limited experience) takes even more effort.

Which would entail that femininity-performing transwomen (such as herself) are not women, so I'm pretty sure that's not the definition she meant. I mean, it's also a proper definition (as in not circular or otherwise improper), that's true - but it seems the least likely one. And even if it were it is still directly contradicted a bit later in the video where she makes a whole deal about how (not) performing femininity is not what makes one a woman.

 

[Rolfe]

What a minefield. Who is going to judge whether I'm performing femininity well enough to be allowed into the women's locker room, for goodness sake? How long do I have to perform it for to get through the door? Do we let Pips Bunce in on the days he's being Pippa but not on the days he's being Philip? Or does he get a pass to either room any time on the basis that he performs masculinity sometimes and femininity other times?

What say we just go by the things that are objective and don't change. If you have a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens you know who you are and you stay the hell out of women's single-sex spaces, OK? Now doesn't that solve a lot of ambiguity?

 

[Strawberry]

It could mean not conforming to them, which (in my limited experience) takes even more effort.



How about someone who is generally expected to conform to feminine norms, regardless of the quality of her performance?

How about we define women as people with two X chromosomes?

 

[caveman1917]

How about someone who is generally expected to conform to feminine norms, regardless of the quality of her performance?

Nope, begs the question as to what properties one must have to be "generally expected to conform to feminine norms."

 

[Rolfe]

How about we define women as people with two X chromosomes?

How about we define women as people without a functional SRY gene (or alternatively, without bioavailable androgens)? That gets you round the immediate riposte from the trans lobby "but what about the women who are XY???" Or alternatively, "but what about the men with two X chromosomes?"

• XXY is Klinefelter's syndrome, and these people are male, because the Y chromosome bearing the SRY gene means the foetus develops as male.
• XX SRY-positive happens when the SRY gene, usually on the Y chromosome, is translocated on to an X chromosone, and these people are male because the SRY gene... etc.
• XY Swyer's syndrome is where the SRY gene is either absent from the Y chromosome entirely or is non-functional, and these people are female because the absence of the SRY gene... etc.
• XY CAIS is an interesting one, because these people do have a functional SRY gene on the Y chromosome, but the foetus develops down the female path because the body has no functioning androgen receptors, and these people are female.

This is just a clarification. If we talk about XX and XY this covers >99% of people but the trans activists will immediately weaponise the existence of rare intersex conditions where the XX/XY classification breaks down to prove that sex isn't binary and it's all a spectrum and nobody can tell what sex anyone is anyway.

Pin them down on the SRY gene and all that nitpicking goes away.

 

[d4m10n]

Which would entail that femininity-performing transwomen (such as herself) are not women, so I'm pretty sure that's not the definition she meant.

Okay, I'm clearly failing to get my point across here.

There are two distinct groups of people who are expected to conform to the norms of femininity: cis women and trans women.

One of those groups chooses that performance for themselves, whereas the other does not.

 

[d4m10n]

How about we define women as people without a functional SRY gene (or alternatively, without bioavailable androgens)?

This seems like a reasonable approach, if we are talking about who gets to experience women's sport (rather than, say, women's clothing).

 

[Rolfe]

Okay, I'm clearly failing to get my point across here.

There are two distinct groups of people who are expected to conform to the norms of femininity: cis women and trans women.

One of those groups chooses that performance for themselves, whereas the other does not.

Too complicated, too nebulous, way too open to interpretation and fraud.

Stick with the SRY gene. You know who you are. You got one (and you're not CAIS), stay the hell out of our spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

Stick with the SRY gene. You know who you are. You got one (and you're not CAIS), stay the hell out of our spaces.

I like that you're drawing a bright line, but you aren't exactly being persuasive here. Why should they want to obey your command?

 

[Rolfe]

This seems like a reasonable approach, if we are talking about who gets to experience women's sport (rather than, say, women's clothing).

Two points. First, the current capitulation to the trans cult's every demand means that the menz feelz even allow them into women's athletics events these days. Check up on Rachel MacKinnon, Fallon Fox and Laurel Hubbard for current examples. So you're at odds with the trans activists here. Maybe you're coming round to our point of view after all?

Second, who cares who "gets to experience women's clothing"? Seriously, what even is women's clothing, other than clothing cut and styled to fit a female body rather than a male one? As I don't think we're talking about Iran here, there's no law that prevents anyone from wearing what the hell they choose to wear, nor should there be, so that's a complete non-sequitur. We're not talking about women's clothing, we're talking about women's locker rooms, dormitories, prisons, domestic violence shelters and so on.

 

[Rolfe]

I like that you're drawing a bright line, but you aren't exactly being persuasive here. Why should they want to obey your command?

Why should anyone want to obey yours? I mean, it's nuts. Face it. You're proposing to substitute the proposition that people with male bodies (which is what I described, it's just that it seems necessary to be extremely precise in one's description these days to avoid about ten pages of obfuscation, nit-picking and general water-muddying) should use the men's facilities and people with female bodies should use the women's facilities.

Since you think it's OK to tell the women that it doesn't matter who showers next to them or who takes their clothes off next to them, there seems to be no reason we can't tell the (vastly smaller number of) men who have lady feelz that it doesn't matter who they shower next to or who they take their clothes off next to. Goose and gander sauce.

 

[d4m10n]

Why should anyone want to obey yours?

I'm not making any commands; my usual recommendations in other threads have been to provide fully-private single-use stalls to be used seriatim, whenever possible.

You're proposing to substitute the proposition that people with male bodies...should use the men's facilities and people with female bodies should use the women's facilities.

The invocation of "bodies" sounds rather like we're talking about external phenotypic markers rather than SRY genes and bioavailable androgens.

Since you think it's OK to tell the women that it doesn't matter who showers next to them or who takes their clothes off next to them...

I'm thinking you've likely mistaken me for someone else here.

 

[Robin]

How about someone who is generally expected to conform to feminine norms, regardless of the quality of her performance?

Genuinely not getting what you mean. Going around being a woman is going around being someone generally expected to conform to feminine norms, but not necessarily doing so?

 

[caveman1917]

Okay, I'm clearly failing to get my point across here.

There are two distinct groups of people who are expected to conform to the norms of femininity: cis women and trans women.

Expected by whom? I don't expect butch lesbians ("cis women") to conform to femininity, but I do expect effeminate gay men ("cis men") to conform to femininity. Drag queens are expected to conform to femininity yet they are adamant about themselves that they aren't actually women.

 

[Rolfe]

The whole idea is nonsense. Someone is a woman if he or she is "expected to perform femininity" by society, even if she doesn't? I've heard some crack-brained ideas in my time but that one takes the biscuit. As you say, that makes butch lesbians men and effeminate homosexual men and drag queens women.

Someone is a woman if she has no functional SRY gene, or no functional androgen response. It's not about clothes or makeup or mannerisms or artificial hormones or cosmetic surgery or a feeling in someone's head. It's about living in a female body, whatever you do about that or with that.

 

[Rolfe]

The invocation of "bodies" sounds rather like we're talking about external phenotypic markers rather than SRY genes and bioavailable androgens.

You think genes and hormone receptor sites exist in some sort of disembodied limbo? The genes and the hormone receptor sites determine whether the body you have belongs to the female class or the male class. And (leaving aside the tiny number of edge case DSD presentations), you know which you are.

 

[caveman1917]

The whole idea is nonsense.

Yes, it's also an improper definition. At least the "a woman is anyone who performs femininity" one was proper (in the sense of not being formally logically flawed such as being circular, not in the sense of it actually being a good or useful definition or anything).

 

[Francesca R]

How about we define women as people without a functional SRY gene (or alternatively, without bioavailable androgens)? That gets you round the immediate riposte from the trans lobby "but what about the women who are XY???" Or alternatively, "but what about the men with two X chromosomes?"

• XXY is Klinefelter's syndrome, and these people are male, because the Y chromosome bearing the SRY gene means the foetus develops as male.
• XX SRY-positive happens when the SRY gene, usually on the Y chromosome, is translocated on to an X chromosone, and these people are male because the SRY gene... etc.
• XY Swyer's syndrome is where the SRY gene is either absent from the Y chromosome entirely or is non-functional, and these people are female because the absence of the SRY gene... etc.
• XY CAIS is an interesting one, because these people do have a functional SRY gene on the Y chromosome, but the foetus develops down the female path because the body has no functioning androgen receptors, and these people are female.

Yes

 

[Rolfe]

... my usual recommendations in other threads have been to provide fully-private single-use stalls to be used seriatim, whenever possible.

This bears unpacking. This is a workable solution to public lavatories and indeed changing rooms. It's not a good solution because it deprives women of their communal female-only washing and grooming space which they greatly value for reasons men seem not to understand or appreciate, but it is at least workable.

It is not a workable solution to shared sleeping accomodation. Is every youth hostel, boarding school, domestic violence refuge, prison and so on going to be obliged to provide single rooms for everyone?

It's also not a workable solution for situations where women do not wish to deal with people with male bodies, for whatever reason. Intimate grooming services. Intimate medical examinations. (That sign on the door of the breast screening clinic, "ladies only beyond this point". Women walk around in there naked from the waist up, and all the radiographers are female. Cervical smear testing, where not performed by a qualified doctor - or even if it is, because women can request a female doctor for such examinations.)

So even if we require every business and public body to spend a fortune converting all its lavatories to proper "unisex" format, and either give over a lot more space for this or accept that the queue for the loo is going to get massively worse to intolerable, there are still situations where we need to know who is female and who is male.

Objective physical criteria trump feelings in people's heads every time.