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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lithrael said:
It’s usually stuff like not being admitted as a counterpoint to statements like “I would never want a daughter, they just cry and scream and shop.”

On the other end of the spectrum, my guy friends who aren’t like ‘other guys’ don’t count as evidence that ‘guys aren’t all like that’ because all either a) they are like that, they just hide it because war on men or something, or b) my friends are weirdos.

It’s annoying.
Click to expand...


I can see how that could be, but I think the particular case where Archie had a problem with Rolfe speaking for all women was one where there would, in fact, be near unanimity among women. By contrast, Archie was speaking for a group that did not include himself, and almost all of the group would disagree with him.
 
Ziggurat said:
(...) some women get offended by their boyfriends telling them that they aren't like other girls. That's not what you described, but it's one in which I think they're wrong to be offended. One should not want a boyfriend who finds one interchangeable with other women. Same with the sexes reversed.
Click to expand...

It’s complicated though and really depends on a lot of context. I find that sort of statement galling because of my general dislike of the entire concept of stereotype. I just don’t even like the idea that there’s anything that girls are like. I feel like entire-population trends are good for things like anticipating medical needs, and how to fund services that serve this or that sort of population, and not for guessing what anybody you meet in real life (or your own kid!!) is gonna be like.

The heart of being offended by ‘you’re not like other girls’ or being offended by a girl saying ‘I’m not like other girls’ is the idea that someone has decided they know what girls are like, as if they’re some kind of monolith. And that they’ve further decided to throw the whole ‘what girls are like’ monolith under the bus as though it’s a compliment to say ‘that group you’re a member of is ridiculous, but you’re not!’

I’ve been through the debates on how valid/what good/etc stereotypes are already though, defend them if you like, I’m not personally here for that. Just musing on how I react to them.

ETA: tldr; whenever ‘you’re not like other girls’ means ‘your group typically has some traits I find negative, yet you, despite being a person I would have expected to share these negative traits because of your membership in that group, do not! Yay!’ Yes it is a bit offensive. If they’re just awkwardly trying to say “I only have eyes for you” it’s fine. If they drill all the way down to ‘man it’s nice to meet someone who doesn’t use affection transactionally’ that’s fine too.
 
Last edited:
I can totally sympathise with that, and in fact it's what makes a lot of this trans business so frustrating. Men decide they literally are women if they adopt a bunch of feminine stereotypes, as if "woman" is defined as someone who wears certain clothes, certain makeup, and behaves in a certain way. We're not.

At the same time biological differences do exist. Heart attacks are often missed in women because the presenting signs are different from those in males, which are what is usually in the textbooks, and so on. And doctors really do need to know if you're at risk of prostate or cervical or testicular or ovarian cancer and so on. Even something as basic as clothes needs to be considered in terms of body shape, which varies quite a lot between the sexes.
 
Rolfe said:
I can totally sympathise with that, and in fact it's what makes a lot of this trans business so frustrating. Men decide they literally are women if they adopt a bunch of feminine stereotypes, as if "woman" is defined as someone who wears certain clothes, certain makeup, and behaves in a certain way.
Click to expand...

Ugh but see this is where I really don’t see why we can’t all have it both ways but I can’t make a coherent argument out of it because I simultaneously think it’s BS and fine. I don’t see any good reason that gender can’t both be adherence to the bits you like, stereotypical or not, and just straight up ‘I ******* said so.’ I’m a woman no matter how I act, so I don’t see why someone else shouldn’t get to be a woman no matter how they act. Many other women love to embrace a whole bouquet of stereotypical behaviors, so I don’t see why someone else shouldn’t get to be a woman when they do that.

I don’t think there’s a single thing wrong with embracing a stereotype if you want to. It’s people using stereotype as a guide to what they expect other people living their own lives to be like that gets up my nose.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the problem with that either. Being free of stereotypes should also include the freedom to adhere to the (old) stereotype if that's what floats your boat. It should also include the freedon to adhere to the stereotypes of the opposite sex if you want to.

What I'm taking exception to is the argument that says being female is nothing but a performance, and any man who does the right performance is therefore literally female.
 
Last edited:
Lithrael said:
I’m a woman no matter how I act
Click to expand...

I would agree.

so I don’t see why someone else shouldn’t get to be a woman no matter how they act.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what you're discussing here. If you're talking about biological females who either conform to or do not conform to gender stereotypes, sure, they're all women, regardless of how they do or do not conform to stereotypes. Furthermore, a behavior being stereotypical doesn't make it bad or good, so no value judgment should generally attach to either conformity or nonconformity.

But on its own, this sentence sounds like it could apply to transwomen. You may not have meant it that way, in which case we don't actually disagree, but I don't think it's correct if applied to transwomen. Men don't "get to be" women. Biology isn't that mutable.
 
Rolfe said:
What I'm taking exception to is the argument that says being female is nothing but a performance, and any man who does the right performance is therefore literally female.
Click to expand...

I can’t see it as ‘nothing but a performance to get right’ because society just plain does have that element to it for everyone participating in it; there’s no ‘nothing but’ to it. There simply is an act, a performance, a normative set of behaviors, to every single nook and cranny of society. Some people find it effortless and some couldn’t do it with three years of finishing school. There are absolutely people out there who grew up treated like men, who are better suited to the role of high society lady than I am and as far as I’m concerned they are welcome to it.

I’ve got a thousand bigger problems than worrying how much that kind of thing retards the trend away from gender essentialism.

As long as they are not also saying ‘Hey I put in the work to present perfectly feminine, so I’m not going to respect your transition unless you do too!’ I am not bothered.
 
I think Ziggurat expressed my view, if I understand him correctly. Everyone should be free to dress and present themselves and behave in whatever way they like, within the law. Indeed, everyone should be free to take whatever hormones or have whatever cosmetic surgery they can persuade the medical profession that they need/want. (With the caveat that the medical profession really needs to get its act together and stop being persuaded to prescribe things that will do serious harm, especially when minors are involved.)

However, sex is immutable. Nobody can turn into the opposite sex, literally. They cannot make me believe that they have, and I should not be required to believe that they have.
 
Ziggurat said:
But on its own, this sentence sounds like it could apply to transwomen. You may not have meant it that way, in which case we don't actually disagree, but I don't think it's correct if applied to transwomen. Men don't "get to be" women. Biology isn't that mutable.
Click to expand...

I don’t care about the semantics, and I think it’s 95% pearl clutching to constantly harp on biology, yes we know biology isn’t that mutable, I’m still going to think of that person as a woman. I don’t care how many people think it’s ridiculous that that means you can end up with statements like ‘some women need screening for prostate cancer.’

I’ve known so many androgynous (to me, I don’t have good gender-dar) people in my life I really just can not be bothered caring.

Sport and prisons, what to put on a medical ID bracelet so the EMT knows what to expect, that sort of thing is a thorny problem at the moment, sure. But the basic day to day stuff, I can’t find it in me to give a **** how long this person’s name has been Karen.

I’m 100% on board with the circular definition thing. We can use woman to mean a person’s gender if we want to, and use something else for the immutable biology part. I’m not married to any words and I don’t sympathize with the arguments against changing things up. If you don’t want to I obviously can’t do anything about it. But rest assured I don’t think there’s been any magical thing happening where they don’t have all the bones and bits they were born with, unless and to whatever extent they’ve done something about that.

As for the people who say (I forget who but it’s been said on this board before) ‘I’ll treat them however they want but they can’t ask me to believe in my heart they are really’ **** man who can really ask more than that from anyone? But why not keep it to yourself if you don’t want any pushback? When you’re talking to a bunch of trans folks on the internet and you say so, can you blame them for wishing you didn’t say you think that way? I think we can all live with that anyway; I can live with your thinking that and you can live with the people who wish you didn’t say you think that. ‘But they get people fired with Facebook for wrongthink!’ is not an argument I can buy either.
 
Last edited:
Rolfe said:
I'm not the one who's restricting it. That is what rape has meant for a very long time. I'm merely finding the dodging and diving of those who want it to mean something different an interesting psychological observation.
Click to expand...
If you do some research you will find it is on the whole womens rights activists that have been at the forefront of campaigns for changing antiquated rape laws, since those laws allowed many people who had committed serious sexual assaults against women to evade proper justice and punishment based on nothing more than semantics.
 
Rolfe said:
Actually we're mostly not talking about people who have done anything legally at all. Only about 1% of men in Britain who identify as transgender actually have a GRC. The other 99% are legally men. Men, indeed.
Click to expand...

And that 1% are legally women. So you will call them women. Right?
 
Meadmaker said:
There's a bit of irony here. You reproached Rolfe for speaking for all women. This is the second post you have made recently that speaks for people in a class of which you are not even a part.

I might add that you don't seem to understand the thoughts of people in that class. By contrast, I think Rolfe was probably pretty accurate regarding the thoughts of most women. Maybe not all, but most.
Click to expand...

Who am I speaking for here?

In my experience most women are not narrow minded bigots and it find it quite misogynist of you and Rolfe to assume they are.
 
Meadmaker said:
I can see how that could be, but I think the particular case where Archie had a problem with Rolfe speaking for all women was one where there would, in fact, be near unanimity among women. By contrast, Archie was speaking for a group that did not include himself, and almost all of the group would disagree with him.
Click to expand...

Nonsense on both counts.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Who am I speaking for here?

In my experience most women are not narrow minded bigots and it find it quite misogynist of you and Rolfe to assume they are.
Click to expand...

This accusation doesn't even have internal consistency.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that some of your premises are correct, namely:
1) Rolfe is a bigot
2) Rolfe thinks most other women are bigots
If that were the case, then Rolfe doesn't think bigotry is a bad thing. And if she doesn't think bigotry is a bad thing, then believing most women are bigots doesn't constitute thinking badly of other women. So how could that possibly constitute misogyny?

Your accusation is self-contradictory. It is thus not to be taken seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom