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

[caveman1917]

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

Interesting that you appeal to intellectual honesty even as you fail to provide this mysterious other definition that purportedly exists for the word "woman."

At least Archie made the effort to actually provide his alternative definition so that his claims could be verified against it, turns out that in the mainstream definition 100% of transwomen are not women and in Archie's alternative definition 98% of transwomen are not women. Turns out the thread title had it basically right for both of these two distinctly different definitions of the word "woman" then.

 

[kellyb]

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.

It's "just logic" (and logic is logic, isn't it? Are there multiple "logics"?), and yes, it's a hypothesis, but it's the kind of logically undeniable sequence of events proposed where we don't need to test this hypothesis to know for certain that it will happen, if we're talking about granting all males access to women's showers at places like gyms, where saying "I'm trans" is all it takes to get in. If you do that, there WILL be an increase in male perverts in there, who are more than happy to declare themselves "trans" just for such access.

Do you really disagree with what I'm saying? If not, I can walk you through how it's logically undeniable, and thus does not even require hypothesis testing to be a "fact".

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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?

I'm saying that granting transwomen rights does not confer those rights to cismen. So nothing changes.

From memory when I looked at this before the law around such things is a bit of a mess and I don't think cis-men are actually legally prevented from entering these spaces, I think I checked on restrooms anyway and not sure on locker-rooms if its any different.

Most locker-rooms are dealt with by policy of the locker-room owner rather than legal enforcement.

The law as it stands in the UK as I remember (and forgive me if i get a detail wrong) is that:

1. It is legal to create single-sex spaces
2. Transwomen should be treated as women with regards single-sex spaces
3. Exceptions to 2 are possible but need to be justified as achieving a legitimate aim

So a cis man would have no right to enter a women's single sex place before or after any change to gender recognition, a transwoman would in theory have the same rights before and after any changes to gender recognition also. And exceptions would still be possible.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It's "just logic" (and logic is logic, isn't it? Are there multiple "logics"?), and yes, it's a hypothesis, but it's the kind of logically undeniable sequence of events proposed where we don't need to test this hypothesis to know for certain that it will happen, if we're talking about granting all males access to women's showers at places like gyms, where saying "I'm trans" is all it takes to get in. If you do that, there WILL be an increase in male perverts in there, who are more than happy to declare themselves "trans" just for such access.

Sorry I don't buy the idea that this is undeniable and doesn't need to be evidenced or tested. We are NOT talking about granting all men access to women's showers. We are talking about granting transwomen rights to women's showers. Or actually we are talking about not denying that that access, since they already have it!

I don't know why this is so difficult for people to comprehend. But saying 'I am trans' doesn't make you trans. And no, I don't think there are really any kind of statistically significant number of men who are going to declare themselves trans just for access. If not for the rather obvious reason that they can already do it!

Do you really disagree with what I'm saying? If not, I can walk you through how it's logically undeniable, and thus does not even require hypothesis testing to be a "fact".

Please do. Bear in mind they can already do it, that proposed changes to the law don't grant them any more rights than they currently have and consider that to justify an action to be taken to prevent it you would need to show that its an issue that needs to be tackled and is worthwhile causing problems for trans people to tackle.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

If it's not the definition you were going to use, why did you bring it up then? To show off your skills at creating coherent definitions of the word "woman"? It's easy enough, I can come up with tons of these in a moment, for example: a "woman" is any natural number divisible by 2. Given the appeals to alternative definitions of the word "woman" you were obviously asked about your alternative definition.

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.

Why should legally changing your gender allow you access to single-sex spaces? Gender is not the same as sex. And why would you only allow access to those who have legally changed gender if all that is required for legally changing gender is mere self-declaration? Might as well make the declaration on the spot, why bother with the bureaucracy?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying that granting transwomen rights does not confer those rights to cismen. So nothing changes.

It does if all one needs to do to become a transwoman is to declare oneself to be. Which is what the proposed standard is.

 

[caveman1917]

I'm saying that granting transwomen rights does not confer those rights to cismen.

Are you claiming it's impossible for a man who is not a transwoman to state "I am a woman"? Easily proven wrong: I am a woman.

 

[Belz...]

Never mind. That wasn't very useful of me.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

If it's not the definition you were going to use, why did you bring it up then? To show off your skills at creating coherent definitions of the word "woman"? It's easy enough, I can come up with tons of these in a moment, for example: a "woman" is any natural number divisible by 2. Given the appeals to alternative definitions of the word "woman" you were obviously asked about your alternative definition.

I brought it up because you (I believe) asked for one. And said you had never seen one.

Why should legally changing your gender allow you access to single-sex spaces? Gender is not the same as sex. And why would you only allow access to those who have legally changed gender if all that is required for legally changing gender is mere self-declaration? Might as well make the declaration on the spot, why bother with the bureaucracy?

Because legally changing gender means you are legally of that sex. Already been through this. You change your sex on your birth certificate. If you are married then your marriage may become null and void if same sex marriage isn't allowed for example.

If your aim is to avoid frivolous or insincere changes then it would seem requiring a legal change would be one way to achieve that. It's also presumably one way in which you can achieve some kind of verification of whether someone is trans.

It may not be the best solution, there may be better ways to achieve the same result, but it seems like a better solution than excluding all transwomen at least.

If the genuine aim is to stop someone claiming to be a woman for the purposes of accessing a woman's locker-room then it would seem that requiring a legal change of gender would achieve this in virtually all if not all cases. Disagree?

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Are you claiming it's impossible for a man who is not a transwoman to state "I am a woman"? Easily proven wrong: I am a woman.

No. What you have written bears no relation to the words of mine that you quoted.

What I am saying is that those are not magic words. And that saying them doesn't confer you any rights.

 

[Belz...]

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.

No, just THAT ONE question. Stop trying to put other words into his posts that aren't there.

I just don't understand why you can't accept things that seem blatantly obvious.

I'm sure you at least understand that "obvious" is code for "that's my opinion", and so that other people don't agree with your opinion shouldn't be surprising or puzzling.

I literally don't understand what you are arguing about

As opposed to not understanding it figuratively?

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.

And as pointed out by another poster this is a silly argument. The biological might have been matched to the definition later on, but it matches the earlier concept of "woman", so there's no actual change there. The point is that at no point in history was the word ever defined as "whoever identifies as such".

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

We could also say that a woman is a motor vehicle with three wheels.

And that definition would not be circular.

Of course it would. If you ask me what a rabbit is, and I tell you that it's anything defined as a rabbit, it doesn't answer the question, because "as a rabbit" is the thing I'm asking you to define.

Or useless.

If a definition is recursive it's pretty much useless, yes.

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.

Ah, see? That's the answer that you should've given earlier. That's a non-circular definition that we can discuss.

 

[Ziggurat]

If the genuine aim is to stop someone claiming to be a woman for the purposes of accessing a woman's locker-room then it would seem that requiring a legal change of gender would achieve this in virtually all if not all cases. Disagree?

That depends entirely upon what is required to make that legal change.

There's a guy in Canada who went through the legal change process in order to get cheaper car insurance as a woman, but otherwise he lives as a man. What did he need to do? Get a doctor to sign a piece of paper, which the doctor did upon request. Now as far as I know, he doesn't have perverted intent, but if he did, the process would have been no impediment to him.

Plus you're still ignoring the fact that the push is to allow biological males access to female-only spaces even if they haven't gone through the legal change.

 

[caveman1917]

I brought it up because you (I believe) asked for one. And said you had never seen one.

No I obviously asked for your alternative definition of "woman" and required it to be coherent (a requirement which was made explicit for obvious reasons to anyone familiar with the thread or larger debate). Why would I ask you for just any coherent definition of the word "woman" given that I can make these up myself at high rate? Here's another one: a "woman" is any natural number only divisible by 1 and itself.

I do applaud you for at least giving one such alternative definition, rather than just appealing to its supposed existence whilst refusing to provide it, before you, presumably, had to backtrack when you realized it still makes the thread title 98% correct.

If the genuine aim is to stop someone claiming to be a woman for the purposes of accessing a woman's locker-room then it would seem that requiring a legal change of gender said person to claim to be a woman would achieve this in virtually all if not all cases. Disagree?

Now read that again and apply some reasoning for once.

 

[caveman1917]

What I am saying is that those are not magic words. And that saying them doesn't confer you any rights.

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.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, just THAT ONE question. Stop trying to put other words into his posts that aren't there.

YES THAT ONE QUESTION! THE ONE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOTCHA!

Hey this hammer is useless!
What do you mean?
It doesn't screw in screws!
That doesn't make it useless, something isn't useless just because it can't do everything
NO ITS USELESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm sure you at least understand that "obvious" is code for "that's my opinion", and so that other people don't agree with your opinion shouldn't be surprising or puzzling.

No, obvious as in something that any normal reasonable person would not question. To the point where I am asking myself if I am missing something or whether you have other issues that I am not aware of. You seem incapable of understanding language, comprehending examples or following arguments unless you agree with them. You understand fine the vagueries of language from posters you agree with and then nit-pick to death every syllable of things I say to you. Rather than engage with the discussion you just fight over everything. It's tiresome.

And as pointed out by another poster this is a silly argument. The biological might have been matched to the definition later on, but it matches the earlier concept of "woman", so there's no actual change there. The point is that at no point in history was the word ever defined as "whoever identifies as such".

No it doesn't match with the earlier concept of woman. It just differs in ways which you are willing to accept.

We could also say that a woman is a motor vehicle with three wheels.

We could. What benefit would that bring us? Would it help us get anywhere?

Of course it would. If you ask me what a rabbit is, and I tell you that it's anything defined as a rabbit, it doesn't answer the question, because "as a rabbit" is the thing I'm asking you to define.

And in your example that definition already exists otherwise nothing would be defined as a rabbit. Again I think you are just getting yourself bogged down here. Take a non-biological example. Is Pluto a planet? What's the definition of a planet? It's an object that meets our criteria to be defined as a planet. And if those criteria change because we decide to change them somethings will become planets or become not planets. And nothing will have changed about those things, and no definition is right or wrong.

If a definition is recursive it's pretty much useless, yes.

Well it isn't recursive. You may recall the original post actually said 'this is not circular, but it is useless'

Ah, see? That's the answer that you should've given earlier. That's a non-circular definition that we can discuss.

Sorry I gave you some credit for being able to think through what was being said, rather than pretend that it was all a mystery and the meaning wasn't there.

 

[d4m10n]

There is no need to distinguish between concept and referent if you're already distinguishing between word and referent.

Words have multiple meanings, and thus nouns may well refer to multiple objective phenomena IRL. For example, when I say "my wife works in women's health" I'm talking about how she treats adult human females but when I say "my wife is in the women's clothing department" I'm talking about the part of the store featuring clothes worn by people who prefer feminine presentation to a masculine one. These are two different sets of people, in real life, despite the fact that I'm using the exact same word.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That depends entirely upon what is required to make that legal change.

There's a guy in Canada who went through the legal change process in order to get cheaper car insurance as a woman, but otherwise he lives as a man. What did he need to do? Get a doctor to sign a piece of paper, which the doctor did upon request. Now as far as I know, he doesn't have perverted intent, but if he did, the process would have been no impediment to him.

Well yes and no. Yes, it isn't 100% perfect, but no, most (almost all) people are not going to change their gender just on a whim. What it would certainly stop is this mythical beast who is a woman on a Tuesday at 11am just to get access to the women's locker room and then changes back to a man at 11.15.

Plus you're still ignoring the fact that the push is to allow biological males access to female-only spaces even if they haven't gone through the legal change.

No I'm not ignoring it I am trying to avoid the conflation that is going on. And I am trying to understand what it is people are actually objecting to because it appears as if people are objecting to a lot more than cis-men getting access to women's locker rooms. In fact its more than 'appears' it's been stated.

 

[caveman1917]

Words have multiple meanings, and thus nouns may well refer to multiple objective phenomena IRL. For example, when I say "my wife works in women's health" I'm talking about how she treats adult human females but when I say "my wife is in the women's clothing department" I'm talking about the part of the store featuring clothes worn by people who prefer feminine presentation to a masculine one. These are two different sets of people, in real life, despite the fact that I'm using the exact same word.

How does this negate what I said?

 

[Meadmaker]

If the goal of redefinition of the words "man" and "woman" is to obtain greater exactitude, the effort is failing miserably.

 

[Belz...]

YES THAT ONE QUESTION! THE ONE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A GOTCHA!

Stop screaming.

Your analogy is ridiculous. The definition didn't work because it didn't define the word. Full stop. So of course you'll be asked to actually define it.

No, obvious as in something that any normal reasonable person would not question.

You don't think that your conception of what a normal reasonable person is or thinks is entirely your own opinion?

To the point where I am asking myself if I am missing something or whether you have other issues that I am not aware of. You seem incapable of understanding language, comprehending examples or following arguments unless you agree with them. You understand fine the vagueries of language from posters you agree with and then nit-pick to death every syllable of things I say to you. Rather than engage with the discussion you just fight over everything. It's tiresome.

Personal attack aside, you should at least consider the possibility that it's entirely because you are not being clear or coherent.

No it doesn't match with the earlier concept of woman. It just differs in ways which you are willing to accept.

Oh, good: then you'll be able to tell me who the 'new', biological concept of 'woman' excludes that the old concept didn't, or includes that the old concept didn't.

We could. What benefit would that bring us? Would it help us get anywhere?

Of course it would. Motor vehicles are, after all, entirely dedicated to getting you places.

And in your example that definition already exists otherwise nothing would be defined as a rabbit.

You're missing the point. The point is that if you have to ask to define it, then there's a contention about what's being meant by the term. 'A woman is anyone who identifies as such' means nothing if _my_ definition is that women are defined by biological characteristics that have nothing with identification. That's why you were asked to provide YOUR definition, and a non-circular one at that.

Well it isn't recursive.

For ****'s sake, Archie, the definition includes the word it defines! Do you even know what recursive means?

Sorry I gave you some credit for being able to think through what was being said, rather than pretend that it was all a mystery and the meaning wasn't there.

Yeah, keep personalising the discussion. It sure cannot possibly be because your definition was utter crap.