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

[Strawberry]

Wow! Such insight! I sure am glad you introduced this idea to the discussion, because we have certainly none of us heard it before. In this thread. Lots of times.

The truth never gets old.

 

[Lithrael]

Yeah yeah, go tell it on the mountain.

 

[Rolfe]

And all of those lots of times nobody has had any sensible answer to why being under the delusion that you're the opposite sex is any different from any of these other delusions that have been referred to.

 

[caveman1917]

And all of those lots of times nobody has had any sensible answer to why being under the delusion that you're the opposite sex is any different from any of these other delusions that have been referred to.

I wouldn't hold my breath, there hasn't even been a sensible definition of "woman" that would make the thread title anything other than trivially true, and we're already two iterations into the discussion.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And all of those lots of times nobody has had any sensible answer to why being under the delusion that you're the opposite sex is any different from any of these other delusions that have been referred to.

Presupposition that transgender persons are delusional makes it hard to form any kind of reply that will be deemed "sensible" by those starting with that belief.

 

[Hevneren]

Wow! Such insight! I sure am glad you introduced this idea to the discussion, because we have certainly none of us heard it before. In this thread. Lots of times.

Everybody in this thread is repeating themselves, so why can't I? Anyway, if you think what I wrote doesn't make sense, please explain why.

 

[Rolfe]

I wouldn't hold my breath, there hasn't even been a sensible definition of "woman" that would make the thread title anything other than trivially true, and we're already two iterations into the discussion.

Woman, adult human female.
Adult (in biological terms), an individual who is old enough to have experienced puberty.
Female, as regards mammals, is an individual who, as a foetus, took the female developmental pathway.

Which developmental pathway a foetus takes is genetically determined at conception. A foetus with a functional SRY gene and bioavailable androgens will take the male pathway. Foetuses lacking either of these attributes will take the female pathway. Mosaic and chimera conditions may complicate the issue as the effective genotype may not be the genotype of the actual sample material, however the general rule still holds.

In practical terms >>99% of individuals are either perfectly normal XY or XX genotypes, with the SRY on the Y chromosome and the X chromosomes lacking the SRY gene, and with normal androgen sensitivity, or else they have a DSD abnormality but this does not in any way make it difficult to ascertain their true sex. Cases of genuine ambiguity that require in-depth investigation are a very tiny minority in population terms.

Biological sex is immutable and cannot be changed by administering the hormones typical of the opposite sex, or by surgery. Let alone by dressing up and putting on makeup. We know what a woman is, and it is not a 46XY man no matter what he does to himself.

And while I don't believe such people should be discriminated against in any way because they identify as trans, I am long past being pity-shamed into acceding to the abolishing of all women's single-sex provisions because some men's feelings are hurt if they're not allowed into our spaces. Trans-identifying men have all the rights and privileges of men, and should not in any way forego any of these rights and privileges on account of identifying as trans. That is what trans rights means to me. It should not mean the appropriation of the rights of the sex they were not born into.

 

[Rolfe]

Is anybody else reading the Terra Ignota series by Ada Palmer? The treatment of this issue is - interesting, let's say.

We have an imagined future where gender identity has been expunged from the human race. Everyone uses "they/them" pronouns. Except, the story isn't written with they/them pronouns for the most part, and indeed it would read very oddly if it were. The English language relies quite heavily on the understanding of they and them as plural pronouns, except in some very restricted circumstances where the meaning is usually perfectly clear. I find it difficult to imagine how the language might evolve so that he/her turns into they in the same way as thou turned into you. I think it's more likely it would drop the she/her and use he/him for everyone. (I don't give the made-up ones a ghost of a chance of sticking.)

Anyway, we're told we're in this genderless future, and occasionally we're reminded of that by a narrator who actually does use the they/them forms. However, the first-person narrator of the story is someone with some extreme - er, idiosyncracies - and among other things he is obsessed with gender. He chooses whether to call the other characters he or she not according to whether they are male or female, but according to his perception of their character.

This can lead to some (fairly cheap) surprising revelations, such as that the Chief of Police, always called "Papa" as a contraction of the surname Papadopoulos, is actually a woman. The reader doesn't ever find out the sex of some of the more minor characters, as the author tries to make the names ambiguous (on the premise that gender-ambiguous names are now the fashion). One extremely aggressive character called Dominic, who "presents" as masculine, is clearly established as a woman from the start. Most bizarre is a character (Carlyle) introduced as male, and certainly male, whom the narrator chooses to switch to calling "she" for a fair chunk of the book on the basis of his caring and "feminine" character. But of course we're supposed to understand that this is all in the narrator's head, and the sane characters in the story aren't thinking about what sex anyone is and are calling everyone they without making an issue of it.

When I started the books my first thought was, oh good grief no, give us a rest, there is no way the future is going to turn out like this, the division into male and female runs far too deep in the human race for it to be expunged completely. And while the possibility of some sort of gender-neutral pronoun system gaining acceptance can't be discounted (I believe some existing languages are already structured like that), the idea that someone is he or she not based on sex but on character or occupation is batsqueak nuts.

Now, the more I read it, the more I think that last may actually be the point. I suspect the author is playing with the current pronoun obsession and sending it up something rotten. But I don't know. I did take part in a long late-night discussion with her about the books (this was maybe 50 or 80 people in a situation where we could ask questions and she expanded and digressed in her answers). But I didn't ask her. I want to wait to see how it plays out, and whether she makes it clear what she's actually playing at.

 

[Strawberry]

Presupposition that transgender persons are delusional makes it hard to form any kind of reply that will be deemed "sensible" by those starting with that belief.

It's hard to form any sensible reply because you're trying to assert that a delusion is real.

 

[Rolfe]

It's hard to see what other word one might use to describe someone who asserts something that is clearly at odds with observable reality. In what way does "I'm really a woman" (said by someone with a normal 46XY genotype) actually differ from "I'm really Napoleon"?

Nobody is "born in the wrong body". It's a contradiction in terms. It's a tautology. You are your body. You can't possibly have been born in somebody else's! There is no such thing as a gendered soul. There is no stork allocating pink and blue bodies and sometimes getting it wrong.

There is also no such thing as a "female" brain in a male body. The cells of the brain are all 46XY just like the rest of the body they're in. The brain is exposed to the same hormones in the bloodstream as the rest of the body, the hormones that were responsible for growing that male body and putting that male body through male puberty.

So yeah, "I'm really a woman" is as delusional as "I'm really Napoleon."

There are syndromes that cause men to desire to be women. That's obvious, and has been understood for a very long time. But they aren't women and they can never actually turn into women, and if they start imagning that they somehow are women then we're back to delusional again.

 

[Roboramma]

Since we've dealt with the horrible outrage of clicking reply on the wrong post, I'll try again:

Sorry, you clicked on the wrong post? I thought you actually apologised not for replying to the wrong post, but for claiming that I was trying to draw parallels between trans people and people with transmissible diseases when I did nothing close to that.

Now it seems like you're saying that it was someone else who was doing that, and you just directed that attack that the wrong person? Or what? What does "clicking reply on the wrong post" refer to here?

What's the procedure for housing in terms of someone HIV positive?

That's an interesting question, have you looked it up?

I think that there are important differences here as well, but if you'd like to make a case regarding HIV positive teens being housed together with other teens, feel free to make it.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

It's hard to form any sensible reply because you're trying to assert that a delusion is real.

You can't speak in further support of your claim because of your claim. Circular logic.

No, you made the positive assertion that they are delusional, don't try to flip the burden.

Furthermore, just because you can reduce a claim to one sentence and mention another sentence structured in similar fashion making a known false claim doesn't erode the credibility of the first statement.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Sorry, you clicked on the wrong post? I thought you actually apologised not for replying to the wrong post, but for claiming that I was trying to draw parallels between trans people and people with transmissible diseases when I did nothing close to that.

Now it seems like you're saying that it was someone else who was doing that, and you just directed that attack that the wrong person? Or what? What does "clicking reply on the wrong post" refer to here?

In the interests of not derailing (I'll be honest: in the interest of not entertaining this very transparent sidestep/distraction) any further, take it to PMs.

That's an interesting question, have you looked it up?

I think that there are important differences here as well, but if you'd like to make a case regarding HIV positive teens being housed together with other teens, feel free to make it.

FERPA and HIPAA are a good place to start for the basic blueprint.

Basically it starts with none of us even has the right to know such details about another person, nor should they be compelled to disclose it as part of accessing some otherwise publicly available service.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That's a simple fact. Your feelings about that fact cannot change it. Stating true facts is not transphobic.

That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Claiming opinions as facts in order to denigrate transpeople = transphobia.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Ah, finally. Let's see.



That's not what she said.



That's not what she said.



I'm slightly worried that you cut the preceding part of her post deliberately to make the quote appear worse than it is. But even as presented, the first part of your conclusion is not supported by the quote. As for the latter part, it's not entirely wrong, but it's not exactly what she said.



Facts are not transphobic.



Ok so far so good. You do understand what Rolfe meant by that, though, right?



Again, if you read the larger context, that's not what she said. I'm starting to see a pattern, here.



I took it as hyperbole but I'll give you that one.



Which directly contradicts your earlier claim that she pretended to speak for all women. And that, by the way, is not transphobic.



That's not what she said.



Has nothing to do with transphobia.



Sure, ok. Plenty of people here use anecdotes to 'prove' their biases. I'll give you that one too.



I'm pretty sure you know enough about human language to know that we often don't make everything technically precise. Your interpretation here may be correct but could just as easily -- and in fact more probably, in light of other posts of hers -- refer to a majority or even a large minority of women.



That's not what she said.



See above.



How is it either of these? I see no misandry there, and to call it transphobic, in isolation, is to use a very broad meaning of the term, at best.

If your counter argument is just 'no it isn't' then we aren't going to get very far really are we. It's odd that you claim 'that's not what she said' repeatedly when I quoted the very parts where she said it.

But even with your denial here you still agree with me on at least a couple of items of transphobia AND that she attributed these views to all women at least once.

So can we stop pretending that she didn't?

If you have trouble identifying transphobia then try this. Substitute the equivalent argument about gay people and see if you think it is homophobic, or the equivalent argument about black folk and see if you think it is racist.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Two problems. First off, yes, sometimes it will keep them from banging. When you make an action harder to do, fewer people will do it. The fact that some people may still do it doesn't mean it won't dissuade anyone, or that it's not worth doing if that behavior is undesirable. Sex can be an "in the moment" sort of thing, and if that particular moment won't work, then yes, it may well not happen.

Second, it's not the school's responsibility to make sure teens never have sex. The school's responsibility is to keep them from having sex while under the school's care. If it's harder for them to have sex while under the school's care, but they still really want to have sex, then they may simply wait until they aren't under the school's care. And while parents may still find that outcome just as bad, it's not as bad for the school.

It's also the school's responsibility not to make people feel excluded or treated differently or to encourage exclusion, bullying or other behaviours which will cause problems for people in their care.

The school has a million and one responsibilities so singling out the 'not to have sex on our watch' (and is that even one of them?) is a nonsense from the get-go.

 

[cullennz]

That's not a fact. That's an opinion. Claiming opinions as facts in order to denigrate transpeople = transphobia.

You kind of have to show the fact is written to denigrate transpeople before the equals doubly line thingy

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I do.

The way I read Rolfe's argument, the entire thesis is that if we institute a policy of self-identification for access to womens' safe spaces, this will be a substantial loosening of social restrictions that currently work to preserve the safety of those spaces. Even a tiny number of abusive men sneaking in under such a policy will have the effect of destroying those spaces.

Rolfe's argument that transwomen are not women is essentially an argument against adopting such a policy. It's not an anti-trans argument. It's an argument against loosening the definition to the point where abusive men can more easily exploit it to indulge their own urges at the expense of women.

I don't think this is the argument at all because there is a pattern of throwing **** and seeing what sticks that seems to say that if not all then a sizeable proportion of transwomen fit this description of AGP.

But even if it were how is this any different than arguing that 'not all gay men are paedophiles but we need to treat them as if they are a paedo risk' 'not all black men are murderers but we need to treat them as if they are a murder risk' 'not all Mexicans are rapists but we need to treat them as if they are a rape risk'?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And all of those lots of times nobody has had any sensible answer to why being under the delusion that you're the opposite sex is any different from any of these other delusions that have been referred to.

Well yes there have been.

For one, there is no evidence that the correct medical treatment for someone who thinks they are Napoleon is to accept their claim.

Secondly, claiming to be Napoleon is not the same as claiming to be a transwoman. Napoleon is a dead French general. Women still exist and there are billions of people in that group.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Female, as regards mammals, is an individual who, as a foetus, took the female developmental pathway..

Right so let's see if the usual suspects jump on the circularity here as they would with ANY other definition. I'm not going to hold my breath.