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

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Archie?

Yeah, sorry is there a specific part you want me to respond to? Otherwise we are just going to keep going round in circles on topics on which we will never agree.

 

[Roboramma]

All the transwomen I know always wear something very "woman-gendered" in public so they're never misperceived as a cisman.

Yeah, that was my general perception as well, but should they have to? And will that continue to be the trend over the next decade?

 

[kellyb]

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

Nope. You're not being precise enough in your own thought to follow this little technicality and are wanting to play dictionarywars instead, so I'll let you believe whatever you want, and I don't care any more.

Whether you're unwilling, or if you're unable to comprehend the difference, it doesn't matter to me. Maybe d4m10n will feel like explaining it to you, and you can [pretend to?] not understand at him. Sayonara!

 

[d4m10n]

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

I'm just answering post 1417.

It seems important to me that we distinguish between words, concepts, and referents, if we are going to argue about what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" in our society.

 

[Belz...]

Yeah, sorry is there a specific part you want me to respond to? Otherwise we are just going to keep going round in circles on topics on which we will never agree.

Don't you think at least responding to my demonstration that he didn't say what you claimed Caveman said would be at least a show of intellectual honesty?

As for the rest, it's a discussion of your use of terms, which is crucial to the discussion. I don't know why you think we'll "never agree", unless you're determined to never agree no matter what.

 

[Belz...]

I'm just answering post 1417.

It seems important to me that we distinguish between words, concepts, and referents, if we are going to argue about what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" in our society.

Yeah sure, but I'm asking you where you're going with this line of argument.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

This seems to be a massive leap, an unjustified one in my opinion.

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.

And you are conflating two or possibly more issues. One being whether transwomen have the right to access women's spaces and the other being what constitutes a transwoman.

And when you drill down actually the think about Self ID seems to be fraught with misunderstanding or misinformation but also doesn't seem to be the real stumbling block because as many (including yourself apparently judging by the 1st quote here) don't want ANYONE they consider male in women's spaces and they consider all transwomen to be male.

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.

The conflation seems to be between 'transwomen' and 'cis-male perverts and rapists' but yes it is a clever rhetorical trick and not entirely honest.

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.

The object to which the term Earth refers is objective. But the meaning of the word can change as we learn new things about the object. That's why argument from definition seems silly to me. Imagine trying to argue that 'The Earth means the thing at the centre of the solar system so if the planet we are on isn't the centre of the solar system it isn't Earth.'

And it gets harder for non Proper nouns. What is a table? What is a door?

 

[caveman1917]

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.

Pre-verbal children can distinguish between male and female children, and I'm also pretty sure that people knew that people come in two sexes long before the English language, let alone the word woman, 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.

Sure, you can redefine the same word to have a different meaning. Let's say you change the meaning of "woman" from "adult human female" to "anyone who says they are a woman" and let's then use "sdkj" for "adult human female." Then you'd still need to explain why you think women should be allowed into sdkj-exclusive spaces because clearly not all women are sdkj.

 

[Roboramma]

And you are conflating two or possibly more issues. One being whether transwomen have the right to access women's spaces and the other being what constitutes a transwoman.

I think he's doing the opposite, he's trying to make clear that they are separate issues when they are too often conflated.

 

[kellyb]

Yeah, that was my general perception as well, but should they have to? And will that continue to be the trend over the next decade?

I feel uncomfortable speaking on behalf of transwomen and trying to explain their thoughts when they're not here to do it correctly, and I might not exactly understand, so take what I say with a grain of salt, but...

I think what's going on with that is that no, they shouldn't have to, but the problem is just nature's fault, and not the social rules here.

If they don't signal "NOT cisman", they WILL be presumed to be one, and they HATE it when that happens. But that's not society or any other person's fault.

And in addition, for some, "man clothes", even the basic actually just gender neutral ones, give them a slight case of being "triggered" in something like PTSD - some kind of "post end of transition stress disorder" type thing, where they're reminded of when they felt like they were LARPing being cismen half the time, which was a truly hideous experience for them. They completely freak out and melt down regularly for the first time in their lives having to wear dude clothes sometimes at the end of the transition period. There's a BAD BAD BAD psychological association with putting on those clothes for them related to that phase of their lives that either lasts for forever, or for a long time. They don't want to even think about wearing dude clothes. It reminds them of one of the darkest times in their lives involving all sorts of shame and profound, total rejection by people who loved them before. (eta: the question of whether or not the people who actually hard-core reject their friends and/or family for coming out/being trans ever loved the individual before is an interesting one, I'd almost like to explore it, but it makes me livid. And my short answer is "probably not". And I'll leave that at that.)

I'm going on strictly my own friends' experiences here - so that's really limited, plus I'm no shrink or sociologist or anthropologist, but I'd personally guess the trend will hold for the forseeable future.

 

[Ziggurat]

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'

I've laid out the logic rather plainly. Make it easy for people to misbehave without consequences, and people will misbehave. I don't understand why this confuses you.

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...

You clearly don't understand Chesterton's fence. It isn't an argument against any change.

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.

For the most part, transwomen only have access to those spaces if they're actually trying to pass as women. That's a significant barrier which filters out a lot of potential misbehavior. But the proposed standards would allow access for anyone, whether or not they're trying to pass as women, so long as they simply say they are women. That's no barrier at all. Why would you expect anything other than an increase in misbehavior.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Don't you think at least responding to my demonstration that he didn't say what you claimed Caveman said would be at least a show of intellectual honesty?

Caveman said it was 'useless' I pointed out that it would have use. And that not being able to answer other questions didn't render it useless. Caveman's statement that it didn't define what the legal definition of woman should be seems neither here nor there given 1) We have a legal definition 2) We can as a society agree a legal definition. The question then just seems fundamentally flawed. And the statement that the term is 'useless' is objectively false.

As for the rest, it's a discussion of your use of terms, which is crucial to the discussion. I don't know why you think we'll "never agree", unless you're determined to never agree no matter what.

I just don't understand why you can't accept things that seem blatantly obvious. And I really don't see what your objection is. I literally don't understand what you are arguing about so I don't think we can even have a useful discussion let alone come to an agreement.

First of all, people have a concept of 'woman' which has existed and predates all biological definitions or any other dictionary definition or anything else. As we have learned more about reality we have revised these definitions and sought to achieved greater exactitude.

Given where we are today. If we chose to, we could simply say that a woman is anyone who the law recognises as a woman. And that definition would not be circular. Or useless. Because in law a woman is someone who was assigned female at birth, or who was assigned male at birth and has gone through the process of changing gender. And legally, that process is spelled out also. So there is nothing circular there. You might not LIKE it as a definition. It might not be the best definition. It might have flaws. But it doesn't make it useless or circular or incoherent. I would really like to hear you explain in detail why you think this definition doesn't work. My only guess at the moment is that you don't seem to like it because you think there is a 'right answer' to what a woman is and that somehow the definition has to align with this 'right answer'

I would love to pursue discussion on the biological definition further but notice that my honest question to Rolfe has not yet been responded to so I am waiting to see what her answer is.

My current understanding is that 'it is more complicated than that' and I have seen the opinions of a number of people who study biology, sex, gender and related topics who do not in the least bit share this view that 'male is male and female is female and that's just a biological fact' So I dont believe that the 'biogical definition' is indeed as cut and dried as people who have us believe.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Pre-verbal children can distinguish between male and female children, and I'm also pretty sure that people knew that people come in two sexes long before the English language, let alone the word woman, existed.

Sure, you can redefine the same word to have a different meaning. Let's say you change the meaning of "woman" from "adult human female" to "anyone who says they are a woman" and let's then use "sdkj" for "adult human female." Then you'd still need to explain why you think women should be allowed into sdkj-exclusive spaces because clearly not all women are sdkj.

So are we agreeing that argument by definition is a waste of time? Then we can move on to the last part above.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

I'm just answering post 1417.

It seems important to me that we distinguish between words, concepts, and referents, if we are going to argue about what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" in our society.

There is no need to distinguish between concept and referent if you're already distinguishing between word and referent. Heck, there's even no need to distinguish between word and referent unless one is bent on using a word to refer to something other than what it usually refers to, as seems to be the case here, so I'll just refer you to my reply to Archie above: On what basis should all women be allowed into sdkj-exclusive spaces given that some women are not sdkj?

 

[caveman1917]

Nope. You're not being precise enough in your own thought to follow this little technicality

I highly doubt it. But as you're unwilling to argue your case I suppose we'll never know. So far your case seems to have been limited to this:

and

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "and" is just a social construct.

are

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "are" is just a social construct.

wanting

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "wanting" is just a social construct.

to

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "to" is just a social construct.

play

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "play" is just a social construct.

dictionarywars

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "dictionarywars" is just a social construct.

instead

But let's not forget that the meaning of the word "instead" is just a social construct.

Sayonara!

And so on and so forth... Tada!

 

[caveman1917]

Given where we are today. If we chose to, we could simply say that a woman is anyone who the law recognises as a woman.

Only about 2% of transwomen in the UK have legally changed their gender, so by your definition you agree with the thread title, that transwomen are not women (at least most of them)?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I've laid out the logic rather plainly. Make it easy for people to misbehave without consequences, and people will misbehave. I don't understand why this confuses you.

But it doesn't make it easy for people to misbehave without consequences. You laid out a logic but that's just one logic and its not backed up by evidence or data. It's a hypothesis. At best. All I am saying is that if you want me to be concerned about negative consequences then you are going to have to do more to convince me that these negative consequences are going to be real.

You clearly don't understand Chesterton's fence. It isn't an argument against any change.

Perhaps I don't. It could certainly be used as an argument against any change. Which is why I said rather than just use it as a gotcha then we should actually discuss the change.

For the most part, transwomen only have access to those spaces if they're actually trying to pass as women. That's a significant barrier which filters out a lot of potential misbehavior. But the proposed standards would allow access for anyone, whether or not they're trying to pass as women, so long as they simply say they are women. That's no barrier at all. Why would you expect anything other than an increase in misbehavior.

This seems to be a fundamental misstatement of the current situation. Of course it may be different in other places but my understanding of the situation here in the UK is that this has NOTHING to do with trying to pass. And it has nothing to do with 'saying you are a woman' either.

in reality a cis-man entering a woman's locker-room would have as much right to be there as currently.

 

[kellyb]

I'm just answering post 1417.

It seems important to me that we distinguish between words, concepts, and referents, if we are going to argue about what it means to be a "woman" or a "man" in our society.

For most people it's not important, because most who've argued this stuff before know and accept that there are two distinctly different definitions of the word "woman" in use now. Intellectually honest people pick up on that fact rather quickly. There are people on both "sides" who don't LIKE that fact, though, and that dislike can tempt them into slipping into a sort of denial about the way language actually works. But I'm sure we all do that with certain things sometimes - I'm sure I must develop some kind of "But I don't LIKE reality"-induced situational stupidity, at least every once in a while without noticing it.

If you're dealing with someone who's being like that about language, it's best to just ignore them, or they'll drag you into a year of exploring fun topics such as "the meaning of the word meaning, and how that means transwomen women/not women." LOL

 

[Ziggurat]

This seems to be a fundamental misstatement of the current situation. Of course it may be different in other places but my understanding of the situation here in the UK is that this has NOTHING to do with trying to pass. And it has nothing to do with 'saying you are a woman' either.

in reality a cis-man entering a woman's locker-room would have as much right to be there as currently.

Are you saying that the situation right now in the UK is that cis men have the right to enter women's locker rooms? Or are you saying that they won't have the right to do so under the proposed changes?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Only about 2% of transwomen in the UK have legally changed their gender, so by your definition you agree with the thread title, that transwomen are not women (at least most of them)?

No, I am saying that is a coherent definition of a woman. I have not said its the right definition or the one I am going to adopt.

But, in general, I'm not strongly opposed to the idea that only those who have legally changed gender should be allowed access to single-sex spaces once Self-ID becomes a thing.

I think Self-ID or something similar is an important step in that because as things currently stand its not easy to legally change your gender and a number of people who might choose to do so otherwise currently choose not to or are unable to.

Putting that aside, I don't think it's a terrible position to say that if you haven't legally changed your gender then you are still of your original gender. Of course, there would still be plenty of opportunity socially to treat people of their preferred gender regardless and i think that's a different question really as to how we should treat people generally.