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

[Belz...]

As the article says, both sex and gender are a lot more complicated than is generally believed, and are both a spectrum.

It's not an article; it's a blog. An opinion piece.

And the only reason why sex and gender are distinguished is because of the recent change in definitions. Prior generations understood the two to be synonymous, effectively. Of course, when you change your definitions, the data you have will lead to different conclusions; that's a given.

As for a spectrum, well, not really. If a tiny percentage of the population cannot be identified as one of the two classic sexes, it doesn't upend the entire conception.

I honestly have no idea what this drivel is supposed to mean but, judging by your past body of work, I'm assuming it's both ignorant and bigoted.

Allow me to translate: the view that gender is fluid or a spectrum being biologically supported is incompatible with the previous claims that gender is whatever you feel you are. It can't be both.

As an aside, calling people bigoted every time they disagree with you on a topic like this reflects poorly on you, not them.

 

[Jono]

As the article says, both sex and gender are a lot more complicated than is generally believed, and are both a spectrum.

Yes, most things are more complicated than what most people might realise. Biological sex is not functionally on a spectrum, it's binary. Rare variations can happen yes though none to anywhere near the extent which would negate the former statement.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not familiar enough with luchog's positions to say.

In that case just take my depiction of it as an example: do you agree that simply disagreeing with the position that a trans woman is every bit as much a woman as biological females means that one is dehumanising trans women?

 

[Jono]

As for a spectrum, well, not really. If a tiny percentage of the population cannot be identified as one of the two classic sexes, it doesn't upend the entire conception.

Today, they can (if you're referring to intersex) and always align with one of the two functional codings.

 

[Belz...]

Today, they can (if you're referring to intersex) and always align with one of the two functional codings.

I was under the impression that a small percentage couldn't.

 

[Jono]

I was under the impression that a small percentage couldn't.

We all begin with either the one or the other (Wolffian or Mullerian), even those born intersex (formely called hermaphrodites). Back then, of course, some mistakes were made when they wagered the sex and either raised or also applied corrective surgery to one sex over the other, and without knowing the functional coding... reportedly some of the given persons experienced dysphoria of a form later on.

Now, I'm just a hick from the backwoods of southern scandinavia, not a PhD, so I might be speaking too brashly. I don't think I am however. I learned about this some years ago and have carried that question to different biologists of note for some time and (those who actually knew anything relevant) I was answered in affirmation.

 

[The Atheist]

But they are different. Why is this controversial?

Honestly, what a nutty discussion.

That's why title was written as I put it - Trans women are not women.

It is that obvious, but some people have to cry about it.

To me, trans women claiming they're women is as dumb as white people claiming they're black. We are what we are, and having a "third gender" as does Samoa, seems to do no harm to trans, while preserving the specific rights of biological women.

Nobody is claiming that trans people are biologically identical to their gender.

I find it amusing you start with that, yet it's not what I said.

What I did say was:

This is a perfect example of why the claim that trans women are the same as biological women is complete nonsense.

There's a problem in Rowling's statement from the other direction as well. The implication that "people who menstruate" is synonymous with "women" is implies that people who don't menstruate are not women. So anybody who's gone through the menopause is no longer a woman. A relative of mine had a hysterectomy in her 20s. Did she cease being a woman then?

That is truly pathetic - disingenuous and splitting hairs that don't even exist. It obviously includes women who have menstruated, or even will menstruate.

Rowling was being stupid and, judging by her history of being a TERF, she was also being bigoted.

Rowling is a TERF in the same way Germaine Greer's a TERF.

Who gets to be the arbiter of TERF-ness? Trans women, straight guys or some other group? Women in general have the same position as me - they're not women, and the further you go down the feminist path, the more strongly that view is held.

Don't fall into the trap of reflexively agreeing with something stupid that someone has said just because it aligns with your prejudices.

I don't have any prejudices against trans women or trans men. I've given up my time and money establishing trans-positive employment in some of NZ's largest companies.

What have you done for them apart from internet warrioring?

 

[zooterkin]

Pre-op transwomen will never be accepted as women for the purpose of sexual partners by most heterosexual men.

You may think that's blindingly obvious, but there are many lesbians saying that they are being marginalised by some in the trans-lobby, and told that if they don't find a pre-op trans woman attractive then they are being bigoted. It is barely a step from that to saying the same thing about straight men.

 

[Ron Obvious]

As the article says, both sex and gender are a lot more complicated than is generally believed, and are both a spectrum.

So I take it that's a "no" then, and we're down to self-identification.

They used to commit people who thought they were Napoleon. I suppose these days we'd have to proclaim that they actually ARE Napoleon, or else be thought a bigot.

What a weird world we've found ourselves in.

 

[theprestige]

Who gets to be the arbiter of TERF-ness?

I do, but my arbitration authority is derived:

If you call yourself a radical feminist, then I get to call you a radical feminist. If your brand of radical feminism excludes transwomen, then I get to tall you a TERF.

 

[theprestige]

I honestly have no idea what this drivel is supposed to mean but, judging by your past body of work, I'm assuming it's both ignorant and bigoted.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

If you're going to argue that transgenderism is defined by biology, then your argument necessarily rejects the claim that transgenderism is defined by personal preference.

It's actually just a succinct statement of the same problem we've been debating in this thread the whole time: Are you a man because you have a penis? Or are you a man because you say you are a man, and may or may not wish to have a penis or plan to have one at a later time?

The statement takes the form of agreeing with the apparent position of mainstream transgender activism: Gender is a question of personal preference, not biological fact.

Instead of dismissing this, can you explain why you think it's ignorant and bigoted?

 

[Belz...]

That's why title was written as I put it - Trans women are not women.

In fact, the prefix "trans-" means exactly that.

 

[d4m10n]

Biological sex is not functionally on a spectrum, it's binary. Rare variations can happen yes though none to anywhere near the extent which would negate the former statement.

A large majority of human beings will either produce sperm or ovulate, given the chance to grow old enough. Some few will never do either of these things, they are (sadly, perhaps) excluded from the ongoing drama and bizarre biological adaptation that is sexual reproduction^WP. Rather than a spectrum here, I'm seeing players for team M, players for team F, and those few who are left on the sidelines, many of whom will appear phenotypically male or female to all but the most probing observers.

(Of course none of this has much of any bearing on gender as a social construction or gender as a subjective sense of self.)

If your brand of radical feminism excludes transwomen, then I get to [c]all you a TERF.

From which cissexual safe spaces does Rowling hope to exclude either transwomen or transmen?

 

[Jono]

A large majority of human beings will either produce sperm or ovulate, given the chance to grow old enough. Some few will never do either of these things...

Aye a few will not, though isn't it correct that they are still coded Wolffian or Mullerian regardless, with a rare variance which had its fuller range of the given functionality halted?

 

[theprestige]

From which cissexual safe spaces does Rowling hope to exclude either transwomen or transmen?

Dunno lol. Ask her I guess?

¯\_(シ)_/¯

 

[The Atheist]

You may think that's blindingly obvious, but there are many lesbians saying that they are being marginalised by some in the trans-lobby, and told that if they don't find a pre-op trans woman attractive then they are being bigoted. It is barely a step from that to saying the same thing about straight men.

Bingo.

That's one that amuses the hell out of and also proves beyond any doubt the idiocy of much of this "debate".

I do, but my arbitration authority is derived:

If you call yourself a radical feminist, then I get to call you a radical feminist. If your brand of radical feminism excludes transwomen, then I get to tall you a TERF.

Ok, then I'm a TERF.

I've been called worse things!

(Strangely, and knowing quite a few trans women, I've never come across found one who actually thinks she's a woman. I'm quite sure the screeching is coming from the same vocal minority we see in all contentious subjects.)

 

[BobTheCoward]

Bingo.

That's one that amuses the hell out of and also proves beyond any doubt the idiocy of much of this "debate".

I do think it is weird for it t be such a big factor for most people. Most of the time we spend aroused is not while those genitals are in view. So it isn't necessarily essential.

 

[Ziggurat]

You may think that's blindingly obvious, but there are many lesbians saying that they are being marginalised by some in the trans-lobby, and told that if they don't find a pre-op trans woman attractive then they are being bigoted. It is barely a step from that to saying the same thing about straight men.

You are correct, it is obvious. Sadly there's a certain class of people for whom it is a point of pride that they have educated themselves out of being able to recognize the obvious.

 

[theprestige]

Ok, then I'm a TERF.

I've been called worse things!

Agreed on both counts!

I think there's a certain amount of jackassery parading under the RF banner, but TE isn't part of it.

There's a *lot* of unresolved debate and what it means to be transsexual, and I don't think transwomen get to nominate themselves as women-according-to-feminism until that debate is much closer to resolution.

 

[Marcus]

Bingo.

That's one that amuses the hell out of and also proves beyond any doubt the idiocy of much of this "debate".

It is quite amusing, the idea that men should find persons who have penises attractive because they claim to be women . Idiots.