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

[Delphic Oracle]

I think x and y chromosomes determine sex, gender seems to be more of a subjective, maybe learned, thing to me.

You saw what I did there.

Kudos.

EDIT: Taking the devils advocate position; look what happened when we stopped having blue boy toys and pink girl toys, the kids don't know the roles they are supposed to take anymore..we've got not manly boys in the kitchen and the girls are out hunting wabbit!

Not to mention an entirely opposite opinion about preferred colors for babies in the not-too-distant past.

Dear god, what would happen if we adopted flexibility of role as a desirable attribute in one's selection of mate?!

 

[tyr_13]

I think x and y chromosomes determine sex, gender seems to be more of a subjective, maybe learned, thing to me.

EDIT: Taking the devils advocate position; look what happened when we stopped having blue boy toys and pink girl toys, the kids don't know the roles they are supposed to take anymore..we've got not manly boys in the kitchen and the girls are out hunting wabbit!

Top is the tl;dr part and I'll copy-paste a longer and better explanation from an expert.

'Biological sex' isn't as clear cut as some here assert. It isn't even the x and y chromosomes per se, but the SRY gene on the y chromosome that activates most 'male' traits. Possibly. Sometimes even when that activates the hormonal mechanisms don't actually take for one reason or another.

Yes, that means there are women out there who are XY and don't even know it.

The insistence on sex being clear cut and useful for determining who uses what bathroom remains nonsense. In practice it is using who meets a nebulous understanding of how is 'femme' enough to use the 'Ladies' room. It's about control, fear, and claiming victimhood with all the traditional targets. For every trans woman told they're putting 'real women' at risk, there will be 10 butch cis women harassed. With as many trans women as I know, there are several who are never 'clocked' and nowhere near the rate that several of my cis friends get accused of being trans. The most beautiful woman I've ever seen consistently gets accused, because she's six feet tall. Another because she has short hair and doesn't use makeup. And three other because, well, they're black women. People call Michelle Obama, a beautiful mother, a 'tranny'.

On biological sex: Open Ocean Exploration @RebeccaRHelm

Rebecca is a biologist and an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Asheville USA.

'Friendly neighborhood biologist here. I see a lot of people are talking about biological sexes and gender right now. Lots of folks make biological sex sex seem really simple. Well, since it’s so simple, let’s find the biological roots, shall we? Let’s talk about sex...[a thread]

If you know a bit about biology you will probably say that biological sex is caused by chromosomes, XX and you’re female, XY and you’re male. This is “chromosomal sex” but is it “biological sex”? Well...

Turns out there is only ONE GENE on the Y chromosome that really matters to sex. It’s called the SRY gene. During human embryonic development the SRY protein turns on male-associated genes. Having an SRY gene makes you “genetically male”. But is this “biological sex”?

Sometimes that SRY gene pops off the Y chromosome and over to an X chromosome. Surprise! So now you’ve got an X with an SRY and a Y without an SRY. What does this mean?

A Y with no SRY means physically you’re female, chromosomally you’re male (XY) and genetically you’re female (no SRY). An X with an SRY means you’re physically male, chromsomally female (XX) and genetically male (SRY). But biological sex is simple! There must be another answer...

Sex-related genes ultimately turn on hormones in specifics areas on the body, and reception of those hormones by cells throughout the body. Is this the root of “biological sex”??

“Hormonal male” means you produce ‘normal’ levels of male-associated hormones. Except some percentage of females will have higher levels of ‘male’ hormones than some percentage of males. Ditto ditto ‘female’ hormones. And...

...if you’re developing, your body may not produce enough hormones for your genetic sex. Leading you to be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally non-binary, and physically non-binary. Well, except cells have something to say about this...

Maybe cells are the answer to “biological sex”?? Right?? Cells have receptors that “hear” the signal from sex hormones. But sometimes those receptors don’t work. Like a mobile phone that’s on “do not disturb’. Call and cell, they will not answer.

What does this all mean?

It means you may be genetically male or female, chromosomally male or female, hormonally male/female/non-binary, with cells that may or may not hear the male/female/non-binary call, and all this leading to a body that can be male/non-binary/female.

Try out some combinations for yourself. Notice how confusing it gets? Can you point to what the absolute cause of biological sex is? Is it fair to judge people by it?

Of course you could try appealing to the numbers. “Most people are either male or female” you say. Except that as a biologist professor I will tell you...

The reason I don’t have my students look at their own chromosome in class is because people could learn that their chromosomal sex doesn’t match their physical sex, and learning that in the middle of a 10-point assignment is JUST NOT THE TIME.

Biological sex is complicated. Before you discriminate against someone on the basis of “biological sex” & identity, ask yourself: have you seen YOUR chromosomes? Do you know the genes of the people you love? The hormones of the people you work with? The state of their cells?

Since the answer will obviously be no, please be kind, respect people’s right to tell you who they are, and remember that you don’t have all the answers. Again: biology is complicated. Kindness and respect don’t have to be.'

Note: Biological classifications exist. XX, XY, XXY XXYY and all manner of variation which is why sex isn't classified as binary. You can't have a binary classification system with more than two configurations even if two of those configurations are more common than others.

Biology is a ********.

Be kind to people.

 

[This is The End]

The main problem with Ziggurat's argument can be seen in the hair dye analogy.

If someone dyes their hair a completely different natural color (efficiently/professionally) there is no real life situation where anyone would be able to tell.

So while technically you could say, if you already knew, that the hair is not that color, it is effectively not possible to discover.

So while Ziggurat may technically be correct, it is quite possible to "dye the hair " so effectively that in any real life situation no one would be able to tell. And the technology is getting better every year. In fact, in 100 years (give or take) it will be possible to make a sex change so convincing that even in the most intimate of situations you won't be able to tell it had been done. Especially in 1000 years. (Remember, we are barely over 100 years from when people practiced the most barbaric of medicine. Medicine is still, relatively, in its infancy.) A full body transplant (aka a brain transplant) is an eventuality. It may be 100 years away, or 1000 years away, but it is happening.

Therefore Ziggurat's entire argument is pointless. It will be (and basically already can be) an effectively undiscoverable difference, just like a professional hair coloring.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

I'll guess you prefer sex to gender because "sex" is more binary and "gender" is more nuanced, but the larger discussion is more about gender than sex.

But is it? The way I see it, society and individuals had men/women based distinctions and divisions. More recently, the distinction of gender and sex came into being. Putting aside what these things mean exactly, how binary they are, or how transgender people fit in, there seems to be an implicit assumption that all men/women distinctions refer to gender, rather than sex. I don't know why this would be the case, especially when gender is the more recent idea.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The main problem with Ziggurat's argument can be seen in the hair dye analogy.

If someone dyes their hair a completely different natural color (efficiently/professionally) there is no real life situation where anyone would be able to tell.

So while technically you could say, if you already knew, that the hair is not that color, it is effectively not possible to discover.

So while Ziggurat may technically be correct, it is quite possible to "dye the hair " so effectively that in any real life situation no one would be able to tell. And the technology is getting better every year. In fact, in 100 years (give or take) it will be possible to make a sex change so convincing that even in the most intimate of situations you won't be able to tell it had been done. Especially in 1000 years. (Remember, we are barely over 100 years from when people practiced the most barbaric of medicine. Medicine is still, relatively, in its infancy.) A full body transplant (aka a brain transplant) is an eventuality. It may be 100 years away, or 1000 years away, but it is happening.

Therefore Ziggurat's entire argument is pointless. It will be (and basically already can be) an effectively undiscoverable difference, just like a professional hair coloring.

I think there are degrees to this. When walking down the street, it is certainly very possible to be fully passing. Blaire White, who Rolfe has mentioned in the thread, even had people theorizing she was faking being trans.

But most discussions of thorny issues don't have to do with casual meetings. And most trans people don't have bottom surgery. And especially for trans men, such surgeries are not result in "an effectively undiscoverable difference".

It's an interesting thought experiment to think about Ghost in the Shell like scenarios, but I'm not sure if it is really illuminating.

 

[Ziggurat]

By describing "sex" as immutable.

Because it is. Certain markers for it are not, but a male cannot become female, and a female cannot become male. That's not transphobic. That's simply a matter of definition. I keep asking because you won't answer: what do you think "sex" is?

Furthermore, with self-identification, one doesn't even need to change a single one of these markers in order to qualify as having changed gender. So even if you believe that it's possible to change sex, self-identification means that you don't have to in order for a male to access a female-only space.

Nobody is proposing removing incentives not to misbehave.

Yes, actually, they are.

Sexual harassment and rape are still illegal

In many contexts, sexual harassment is not illegal. And there are preventive barriers to misbehavior, not just after-the-fact punishment, precisely because after-the-fact punishment doesn't suffice, and not all misbehavior can be effectively criminalized. That's why men aren't allowed in women's changing rooms. Enforcement of that preventive barrier provides an incentive to not misbehave. Self-identification removes that preventive barrier, and thus removes an incentive to not misbehave.

Also people who commit these crimes try to do it in ways that doesn't draw attention to themselves

Again, some of this misbehavior isn't criminal. And if you've been paying any attention to the "Jessica" Yaniv saga, you'll know that some predators are happy to draw attention to themselves.

No, that's not what I claimed. You are dishonestly placing "all male predators" in place of people faking transgenderism to access women only spaces. Those are tremendously different groups.

You're not really in a position to accuse me of straw manning you. Nor do you evidently understand what I'm saying. They may be tremendously different groups today, but that doesn't mean they will be when the rules change. When the rules change, behavior changes too.

You were arguing that it's not possible for someone who is male to become female, and presumably vise-versa.

Yes. And nothing you have said even suggests otherwise. Again, what do you even think sex is? You can't answer that question, because any actual, scientifically sound definition will inevitably lead to the conclusion that you can't change it.

If you want to change that to "we need something better than self-identification to determine who gets to be identified as male or female for purposes of gaining access to gender restricted spaces", then I'll consider that to be quite a shift.

You've been straw manning me from the beginning of our interaction, because I've ALSO been saying this consistently for a long time. That's not a shift, that's always been part of my position.

I'm disappointed in you, Mycroft. You're capable of better analysis than this, but you're just not even trying here.

 

[Ziggurat]

The main problem with Ziggurat's argument can be seen in the hair dye analogy.

If someone dyes their hair a completely different natural color (efficiently/professionally) there is no real life situation where anyone would be able to tell.

So while technically you could say, if you already knew, that the hair is not that color, it is effectively not possible to discover.

Except this isn't really my argument. It's a caricature of my argument that misses the most important points. If you have dark hair, and you don't even dye it, and you demand that other people start calling you a blond, does that make you a blond? The answer cannot be "yes" because you could dye your hair but don't. That doesn't make any sense under any scenario.

The relevance of the change not being real isn't really about access to female-only spaces. I've never argued that no transwomen should ever be allowed into a women's bathroom or changing room. It's more specific to the question of compelled speech. Saying that women don't become men and men don't become women isn't transphobic, it's a simple statement of fact. And it's a very dangerous think to make facts forbidden because they are politically inconvenient.

So while Ziggurat may technically be correct, it is quite possible to "dye the hair " so effectively that in any real life situation no one would be able to tell. And the technology is getting better every year. In fact, in 100 years (give or take) it will be possible to make a sex change so convincing that even in the most intimate of situations you won't be able to tell it had been done.

That's highly speculative. Perhaps it will come to pass in the future, but that isn't the case now.

But more to the point, the problem isn't primarily with people who are willing to go through the entire sex change surgery. The biggest problem actors usually don't do that.

 

[This is The End]

But most discussions of thorny issues don't have to do with casual meetings. And most trans people don't have bottom surgery. And especially for trans men, such surgeries are not result in "an effectively undiscoverable difference".

I specifically discounted intimate situations and was only speaking of future tech as far as that is concerned.

 

[Meadmaker]

Still a pretty short list. More importantly, nothing on that list is singularly definitive.

Then nothing is "definitive" and the words are meaningless.


If anyone says that men can have babies, then there is no definition of "man".

 

[Puppycow]

https://www.teenhealthcare.org/health-hub/your-body/

 

[mgidm86]

Top is the tl;dr part and I'll copy-paste a longer and better explanation from an expert.

'Biological sex' isn't as clear cut as some here assert. It isn't even the x and y chromosomes per se, but the SRY gene on the y chromosome that activates most 'male' traits. Possibly. Sometimes even when that activates the hormonal mechanisms don't actually take for one reason or another.

Yes, that means there are women out there who are XY and don't even know it.

The insistence on sex being clear cut and useful for determining who uses what bathroom remains nonsense. In practice it is using who meets a nebulous understanding of how is 'femme' enough to use the 'Ladies' room. It's about control, fear, and claiming victimhood with all the traditional targets. For every trans woman told they're putting 'real women' at risk, there will be 10 butch cis women harassed. With as many trans women as I know, there are several who are never 'clocked' and nowhere near the rate that several of my cis friends get accused of being trans. The most beautiful woman I've ever seen consistently gets accused, because she's six feet tall. Another because she has short hair and doesn't use makeup. And three other because, well, they're black women. People call Michelle Obama, a beautiful mother, a 'tranny'.

Possibly? That's some solid sounding bullpucky!

Fortunately most people do not need lab equipment or a biologist to determine what sex they are, or that of most of the people around them. In the actual world the vast majority of us do just fine.

Most of us know that a so-called "woman" who used to have a penis will probably kick ass in MMA. We've already seen that, as we have in running and other sports.

You must live in a strange place to know so many women being called "trannies" so often.

Use whatever bathroom y'all want and shut the f up already. There are no rights being infringed on, well not yours anyways.

I think this thread encompasses too many subjects. For instance, bathroom usage and sports are very different things, the latter having a very real and measurable effect on other people. I couldn't care less about the restroom angle, except that I want women to be able to decide.

 

[8enotto]

An even stranger place when we destroy language foe the desires of the few.

Anything and anyone could be a man or a woman, including my cat if he declares it.

 

[Meed]

Because it is. Certain markers for it are not, but a male cannot become female, and a female cannot become male. That's not transphobic. That's simply a matter of definition. I keep asking because you won't answer: what do you think "sex" is?

You weren't asking me, but off the top of my head I'd say it's something like a bimodal categorization based on a combination of primary and secondary sex characteristics (reproductive organs, hormones, etc)? What do you think it is?

It's worth noting that concepts are rarely easy to capture with definitions, and the definitional (or "rule-based") view of concepts has been mostly debunked in psychology. Definitions of words also don't have objective truth value (which is not to say arguments over them are never worthwhile, but I find they're often normative arguments disguising themselves as factual ones).

I'm not one to take up the "you can change sex" position, though. You can change secondary sex characteristics. And gender identity can differ from sex.

Furthermore, with self-identification, one doesn't even need to change a single one of these markers in order to qualify as having changed gender.

Indeed, but if we're talking about the UK or most of the US, self-identification isn't the system in place for changing gender on government documents.

So even if you believe that it's possible to change sex, self-identification means that you don't have to in order for a male to access a female-only space.

Self-identification has pretty much always been the de-facto system for most gender segregated spaces. I'm not sure if that's even been against the law, generally speaking, regardless of legally recognized gender. Outside of the US states that imposed sex segregation on certain spaces in recent times (terribly stupid laws, forcing trans men into women's spaces, etc).

Preliminary research hasn't found any ill-effects of gender identity inclusive public accommodation nondiscrimination laws:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13178-018-0335-z

Saying that women don't become men and men don't become women isn't transphobic, it's a simple statement of fact.

While not necessarily transphobic, it's a statement of semantic opinion, not fact. Man and woman can refer to gender.

It's more specific to the question of compelled speech.

What "compelled speech" are you talking about, though? I'm late to this thread. If we're talking about Maya, that was simply a case of an unpaid consultant for a charity not having her contract renewed because they weren't comfortable with all of the public statements she was making. Pretty silly to call that "compelled speech". But if we're talking about something else, please explain.

 

[Meed]

The insistence on sex being clear cut and useful for determining who uses what bathroom remains nonsense. In practice it is using who meets a nebulous understanding of how is 'femme' enough to use the 'Ladies' room. It's about control, fear, and claiming victimhood with all the traditional targets. For every trans woman told they're putting 'real women' at risk, there will be 10 butch cis women harassed.

Not to mention the harm of requiring fully passing trans men to use women's rooms.

People call Michelle Obama, a beautiful mother, a 'tranny'.

The world of "transvestigation" conspiracy theories is wild. Some believe almost all famous people are secretly trans. But yeah, Michelle Obama seems to be the most common target, extending beyond those who buy into the general transvestigation insanity.

 

[theprestige]

Here's the judgement in question:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view

Statements like this where the problem lies:



Maya is pretty clear that transwomen should not be afforded the legal status and protection afforded to women and should be treated legally as men.



Despite her other comments about not being rude, she deliberately misgenders trans women and explicitly makes her stance to continue to do so clear.

Maybe someone with UK vantage could tell me about the employment part. Her contract ended and her company choose not to renew. Is the choice not to renew an employment contract generally considered legally actionable? She tried to get a court to claim that her anti-trans animus was protected speech.

There's an argument to be made that it is in fact the transsexuals who are deliberately misgendering.

 

[Brainster]

This headline will have people scratching their heads:

Transgender man gives birth to non-binary partner's baby with female sperm donor.

 

[theprestige]

This headline will have people scratching their heads:

"Woman gives birth to child conceived with male sperm donor. The mother's partner is irrelevant."

 

[Meed]

This headline will have people scratching their heads:

lol it's really not that confusing, though.

 

[Meadmaker]

"Woman gives birth to child conceived with male sperm donor. The mother's partner is irrelevant."

And some would say that it could be simplified even more by taking away the first hilited word.

 

[theprestige]

lol it's really not that confusing, though.

It's only confusing if you buy into the transactivist narrative that the squares cannot comprehend the problem, and need to be told how to think by their queer betters.