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

[caveman1917]

The meanings of words are social constructs. (seriously, if we agree that "A social construct is something that exists not in objective reality, but as a result of human interaction. It exists because humans agree that it exists.") LOL

Of course not, the meaning of the word "Earth" is the planet we live on, and this planet obviously does exist in objective reality.

 

[kellyb]

Of course not, the meaning of the word "Earth" is the planet we live on, and this planet obviously does exist in objective reality.

The sound people make when they say the word "Earth" only transmits the concept of this planet we live on from one person's mind into another's because we agree that it refers to that. Our language is completely socially constructed.

The word "Earth" has no meaning outside of human minds.

 

[caveman1917]

The sound people make when they say the word "Earth" only transmits the concept of this planet we live on from one person's mind into another's because we agree that it refers to that. Our language is completely socially constructed.

The word "Earth" has no meaning outside of human minds.

The word is a social construct but the meaning of the word (ie that which the word signifies) need not be.

You've made this claim in response to someone stating that the word female signifies biological fact (as opposed to feminine which signifies a gender social construct). Either you were 1) simply informing people of the dull triviality that the word female is a social construct or 2) arguing that the meaning of the word female, said biological facts, was a social construct. Since there have been many many words posted in this thread and this is the first time you apparently feel the need to point out that words are social constructs it seems that option 1 is unlikely, leaving us with option 2.

 

[d4m10n]

The word is a social construct but the meaning of the word (ie that which the word signifies) need not be.

Meanings can only exist within minds, and (as it happens) human minds do not construct meaning apart from human society.

p.s. "Earth" as an oblate spheroid is a relatively recent idea.

 

[Sherkeu]

For proper science to be done, the words "male" and "female" must have some precision, so they provide it:

Sex: A type of eligibility criteria that indicates the sex of people who may participate in a clinical study (all, female, male). Sex is a person's classification as female or male based on biological distinctions. Sex is distinct from gender-based eligibility.

Gender-based eligibility: A type of eligibility criteria that indicates whether eligibility to participate in a clinical study is based a person's self-representation of gender identity or gender (yes, no). Gender is distinct from sex.

For intersex persons, Sex is ALL. The criteria for inclusion/exclusion will make clear who qualifies.

The "Gender" specific studies have a criteria for Sex eligibility. A study on women requires "females" and studies on men require "males".

In this scientific space, a trans woman is not a "woman" or a "female".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Quite so. And males, being larger and stronger than females, pose more of a risk to females, who are smaller and weaker, than other females. Yes, there are lots of female child sexual predators. But note the word you had to include: child sexual predators. They are overwhelmingly women who abuse children in their care, not strangers in restrooms. Stranger sexual assault is overwhelmingly conducted by men. This is not a mystery, everyone knows it.

But you don't seem to think any of that should make any difference to how people assess risk or take steps to protect themselves.

No I absolutely think it should be assessed and the appropriate steps taken to protect people. The problem am I having is so far I haven't seen the assessment of risk presented in anything other than an anecdotal way and with the appropriate steps being suggested as excluding transwomen from a number of spaces that legally they would be entitled to enter as women.

I include the child sexual predator example not because it was the only category but because I thought it was a surprising statistic and because as it stands in the UK we have about 5000 transwomen who are legally recognised as women by virtue of having a GRC.

So if all transwomen with a GRC were allowed to access all female spaces then you would be THIRTEEN times more likely to encounter a female child sex offender than a transwoman in a changing room.

Even if you had all transwomen (regardless of GRC) allowed access how many of the few 100k transwomen are going to be problematic? Are you going to have 64,000 problematic transwomen?

If you consider the stats then I just don't see how the outrage is justified and I certainly don't see that accusations of taking rights from women, turning their spaces into asylums or anything of the sort if justified.

 

[Belz...]

p.s. "Earth" as an oblate spheroid is a relatively recent idea.

Oblate, maybe. 'Spheroid' has been going around for a few thousand years.

 

[kellyb]

Meanings can only exist within minds, and (as it happens) human minds do not construct meaning apart from human society.

p.s. "Earth" as an oblate spheroid is a relatively recent idea.

Yeah. In philosophy (or philosobabble, if you hate philosophy) those things which exist in objective reality are called "referents".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent

The oblate spheroid we're talking about nowadays when we say the word "Earth" is the referent, and it is not a social construct at all.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you consider the stats then I just don't see how the outrage is justified and I certainly don't see that accusations of taking rights from women, turning their spaces into asylums or anything of the sort if justified.

You are assuming that the stats will remain the same, that behavior won't change if you change the standards. But standards create incentives, and people respond to incentives. The stats will change.

You don't understand what you're doing, but you want to knock down Chesterton's fence anyways.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm not confused and nor should anyone else be. You all know what a woman is because you all came out of one. And I suspect even Archie has always known what a woman is whenever he's been selecting who to be intimate with in the bedroom.

Look I would appreciate it if you don't make judgements about me or my family any more. Speak for yourself.

The harmless men are all in the men's room. Pretty soon the safest option for women will be the men's room because all the pervs will be in the women's.

This literally makes no sense. Are all transwomen harmful? If this is the best argument we can come up with then it's pretty woeful

That's even possible to fit in a tweet. Well put.

No it really isn't. Think about what it means and whether it could ever be anything like true

The word is a social construct but the meaning of the word (ie that which the word signifies) need not be.

You've made this claim in response to someone stating that the word female signifies biological fact (as opposed to feminine which signifies a gender social construct). Either you were 1) simply informing people of the dull triviality that the word female is a social construct or 2) arguing that the meaning of the word female, said biological facts, was a social construct. Since there have been many many words posted in this thread and this is the first time you apparently feel the need to point out that words are social constructs it seems that option 1 is unlikely, leaving us with option 2.

Words mean what we as a society deign them to mean. And in fact some words can mean different things to different people. Even Earth has changed its meaning to some degree although it's probably less so with proper nouns.

I think you would struggle to form a justification that the word woman if based on a biological definition since the word and concept of a woman existed long before the biological knowledge existed. So yes the word was a social construct before a biological definition was applied to it and the meaning of the word woman has changed over time. So we should not consider that further changes are somehow beyond the pale, or that they are somehow breaking some objective reality of what the word means.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You are assuming that the stats will remain the same, that behavior won't change if you change the standards. But standards create incentives, and people respond to incentives. The stats will change.

Will then let's see the evidence for this and discuss it. Otherwise its the same logic as 'if we allow gay marriage then what's to stop 3 men marrying a chimpanzee'

You don't understand what you're doing, but you want to knock down Chesterton's fence anyways.

You keep saying this as if it's some gotcha. Chesterton's fence would have denied women the vote, kept gay marriage illegal, kept slavery legal...

I simply don't believe that allowing transwomen to access female spaces (and in fact it is already allowed and happening!) will cause the problems you seem to think it will. I think the bigger issue is around comfort levels and I neither convinced that this is a reasonable excuse to discriminate nor that this will change until the situation changes.

 

[Belz...]

Exactly what he said, you say. Ok let's look:



Nope, nothing in there about it having to answer "all" questions. He only asked the one: how does the law define "woman". It's not only a single, simple question, but it's also a fundamental one.



Are you doing this on purpose? The point isn't that you ask the question again: the point is that in order to understand the definition, you must understand the words of that definition, and one of those words is the word that the definition defines! That is CIRCULAR.



Who said anything about dictionaries? Dictionaries only take note of the usage. But the usage exists. Sure, you can identify as a babghirkhadt, but if that meant nothing to no one, even yourself, then you're not really identifying as anything.

I'm baffled that I have to explain the basics of language to a grown adult.



No, that's not the biological definition. That's your phrasing of it, but that's not it. Again, this is your constant: misrepresent and then pretend that this was the original version.



Every functional definition will have exceptions.



Whom does it exclude, specifically?

Archie?

 

[Meadmaker]

Even if you had all transwomen (regardless of GRC) allowed access how many of the few 100k transwomen are going to be problematic?

If they are known to be male, and they are in a place where females are taking off their clothes, then the answer is all of them.

 

[kellyb]

Oblate, maybe. 'Spheroid' has been going around for a few thousand years.

That's true, and I've heard a hypothesis that it could go back way beyond recorded history, in small patches of humankind here and there, at least as speculation. The hypothesis was based on one of the early recorded instances of it's quasi-demonstration being so simple, that it's hard to not speculate that maybe other people here and there figured it out, too, even if it never made it into an official record, or became a matter of consensus belief.

The early recorded instance was (iirc) some ancient smartypants just looking at a moon as it transitioned over the course of a couple of weeks from half to new (or maybe visa versa) and looking at the shape of the shadows, and "experimentally" comparing it to something like an orange on the ground and using your hand to create a shadow, and seeing the "crescent" shape of the light hitting, and it proving that the moon was a sphere. From there it was assumed that it was reasonably likely it was/they were all really balls - the moon, the earth, and the sun. The hypothesis was that it was simple enough to be almost like inventing the wheel, and how to make fire, if more controversial and up for endless dispute.

 

[Meadmaker]

One issue, and this has been explained over and over again, just like every other issue, is that if we were only talking about people who had completed a surgical transition, the number of objections would be minimal. If you are willing to go to that effort, then fine. We'll let you go into the women's locker room.

If all you have to do is make a self declaration, not so much.


For people in between those two extremes, different people would draw the line at different places. The big objection these days as that the activists are demanding that self declaration be the only criterion, and declaring that anyone who doeasn't accept that is a bigot or a hater.

 

[Belz...]

One issue, and this has been explained over and over again, just like every other issue, is that if we were only talking about people who had completed a surgical transition, the number of objections would be minimal. If you are willing to go to that effort, then fine. We'll let you go into the women's locker room.

If all you have to do is make a self declaration, not so much.

Yeah, but the issue is that the two groups are conflated so that if one is wary of one, it means that they must be against all of them. It's a clever rhetorical trick, if a simple and not entirely honest one.

 

[caveman1917]

Meanings can only exist within minds, and (as it happens) human minds do not construct meaning apart from human society.

p.s. "Earth" as an oblate spheroid is a relatively recent idea.

Nonsense. The meaning of the word "Earth" (ie the planet we live on) is not a social construct. If human society disappears then the word "Earth" will disappear but the planet itself would not. Hence, the word is a social construct but its meaning is not.

 

[caveman1917]

Yeah. In philosophy (or philosobabble, if you hate philosophy) those things which exist in objective reality are called "referents".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent

The oblate spheroid we're talking about nowadays when we say the word "Earth" is the referent, and it is not a social construct at all.

Yes, also colloquially known as "meaning" rather than "referent":

mean·ing
/ˈmēniNG/
noun
what is meant by a word, text, concept, or action.

 

[d4m10n]

If human society disappears then the word "Earth" will disappear but the planet itself would not. Hence, the word is a social construct but its meaning is not.

The objective reality of the planet itself would persist, but the concept of "Earth" would disappear, because concepts cannot exist outside of minds capable of forming and grasping them. If the world is ruled by dogs (as lovely and sweet as they are) no one would be capable of thinking planet as we do, much less specifying what we know of this planet.

 

[Belz...]

The objective reality of the planet itself would persist, but the concept of "Earth" would disappear, because concepts cannot exist outside of minds capable of forming and grasping them. If the world is ruled by dogs (as lovely and sweet as they are) no one would be capable of thinking planet as we do, much less specifying what we know of this planet.

Sorry, what's the point of this line of reasoning?