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

[caveman1917]

Lol quillette. Every subscription comes with a free pair of skull calipers.

Imagine having an argument so bad that even people handing out free pairs of skull calipers can immediately debunk it, and rather than taking it as a sign that a better argument is needed it is taken as a point of pride.

 

[Meadmaker]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_(disambiguation)
Note that this definition does not specify how values are distributed. Something can be a spectrum even when some values are far more likely than others. The spectrum between biological male and biological female has its most likely values near its extreme ends and its least likely in the middle. But it is still possible to recognise that some individuals are more or less biologically male or female compared to others.

I agree, but I will note that "continuum" is part of the definition. Some people are "more biologically male" than others.

To my way of thinking, people who produce sperm are more biologically male than people who produce ova, without exception. I understand that not everyone agrees with that premise, but I have yet to hear any other criterion for placing people into a continuum, i.e. a spectrum, of biological maleness that actually produces a useful means of classification.

It seems to me that people who talk about a "spectrum" of sex always end up refusing to actually consider how to make measurements that might place a given individual at any particular point on the spectrum.

 

[tyr_13]

What's telling is that you'd characterise the responses as such. I've made a detailed response that in no way was just "it's an opinion", and the latter is just an invention by you.

Why lie when it's so easy to verify your claim?

Ha, no. See, I didn't say you or anyone just called it opinion, but that is literally one of the handwaves you used. You also handwaved it with 'sex IS gender', which kind of gives the slight of hand changing from talking about gender to talking about sex away.

The really sad part is I know you're not lying. You believe it because you're going to rationalize it any way you need to.

Far too many in this thread are using it as their 'proof' they're 'just being rational' on the topic, doing just enough to convince themselves they're thinking about it responsibly but not enough to actually change their understanding. It's The Atheist's 'but I have black trans friends!' ego self-soothing.

It doesn't really matter. You all aren't going to change but the rest of the world is, so whatever. My goal wasn't for you, but to let the few who are reading the thread earnestly aren't crazy.

Okay, I definitely missed the study about differences in brain volume between ciswomen and transwomen. Do you have a link to that?

ETA: Do you mean this paper? It seems to run contrary to your claims here:

ETA2: From the same paper...

Seems to me that the brain differences found in that paper apply to a subset of the folks of whom you were claiming measurable differences exist. It also seems to me that we have to dig down to the details here instead of going off the oversimplified claims of science bloggers.

So does that mean you accept the other claims? This isn't a minor point. Your original goalpost has been met then, has it not? YOUR claims, sorry, 'questions' have been addressed.

But no, you're not going to address the rest because you're not actually processing this as increasing understanding and in another year when this thread is on its third iteration you'll ask the same question as if it were not addressed.

Oh, and the literal next line of that study is, "However, MtF (natal men with a female gender identity) had a total intracranial volume between those of male and female controls (Hahn et al., 2014)." (bolding mine).

I mean, I could quote the literal next several paragraphs supporting my points, but another key quote is, "However, when examining GM volumes within sexually dimorphic structures using region of interest analyses (regions in which sex differences are found), subtle deviations from the natal sex were observed in MtF adolescents in the direction of adolescents sharing their gender identity."

You're not 'digging into the details', you're not better than a 'science blogger', you're cherry picking, moving goalposts, and going for a knowledge reset.

What I said to Belz applies here too. I'll go back to lurking so you all can get back to the real issues of sportsball and 'did you know trans women can be incels too?', and I'll go back to arguing with people who are more earnestly interested in the information; Trump supporters on Facebook.

 

[caveman1917]

It seems to me that people who talk about a "spectrum" of sex always end up refusing to actually consider how to make measurements that might place a given individual at any particular point on the spectrum.

Because it immediately becomes apparent that the argument is flawed (in particular it confuses the definition of a property with variables which are correlated with a property) and can just as easily be applied to argue that species is a "spectrum" and that there are no humans or bonobos but just individuals with more or less human-ness and bonobo-ness along a spectrum. Indeed, the same logic can be used to argue that the binary system (0 and 1) is not binary but a "spectrum" where digits can have more or less 0-ness and 1-ness.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Imagine having an argument so bad that even people handing out free pairs of skull calipers can immediately debunk it, and rather than taking it as a sign that a better argument is needed it is taken as a point of pride.

Quillette's MO is to publish scientific type papers that point out mostly uncontroversial observations and extrapolate wildly to justify reactionary, right-wing social policy.

Just like their phrenology and other race realism articles, the wild conclusions far outpace whatever real scientific facts they observe.

The same is true with these TERFs pointing out biological differences between trans women and cis women. Whatever facts about binary sex or genitalia they are trying to make have very little to do with the controversy over whether trans women should be treated as mentally ill perverts and excluded from protected female spaces.

TERFs don't care about academic rigor and biological inquiry when they campaign to exclude trans women from battered women's shelters, despite overwhelming evidence that trans women are at high risk to become victims of sexual and relationship violence.

 

[Meadmaker]

Quillette's MO is to publish scientific type papers that point out mostly uncontroversial observations and extrapolate wildly to justify reactionary, right-wing social policy.

Just like their phrenology and other race realism articles, the wild conclusions far outpace whatever real scientific facts they observe.

The same is true with these TERF's pointing out biological differences between trans women and cis women. Whatever facts about binary sex or genitalia they are trying to make have very little to do with the controversy over whether trans women should be treated as mentally ill perverts and excluded from protected female spaces.

Hmmm...it seems to me you are mixing two issues there that are very different. I think the question of whether they should be excluded from protected female spaces is quite separate from whether they are mentally ill perverts.

 

[d4m10n]

Oh, and the literal next line of that study is, "However, MtF (natal men with a female gender identity) had a total intracranial volume between those of male and female controls (Hahn et al., 2014)." (bolding mine).

As you may recall, I asked about people showing brain differences "prior to any medical interventions such as HRT" but here you are not talking about that. Indeed, most of that paper isn't talking about that. I don't think you're taking the science nearly as seriously as you seem to think you are here, since you fail to differentiate between the sort of differences that are inborn and the sort which result from treatment.

Let's talk about those "subtle deviations from the natal sex...observed in MtF adolescents in the direction of adolescents sharing their gender identity" though. Which of those are most predictive?

 

[caveman1917]

Quillette's MO is to publish scientific type papers that point out mostly uncontroversial observations and extrapolate wildly to justify reactionary, right-wing social policy.

Just like their phrenology and other race realism articles, the wild conclusions far outpace whatever real scientific facts they observe.

Flat-Earth Antifa? The Earth is flat because Hitler (gasp! Hitler!) said it is round. What you're doing is an argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't matter if the author were literally shouting "Gas the jews!" as every second sentence, it doesn't change the fact on whether sex is a binary or not nor on whether the given argument for such fact is valid or not.

The same is true with these TERFs pointing out biological differences between trans women and cis women. Whatever facts about binary sex or genitalia they are trying to make have very little to do with the controversy over whether trans women should be treated as mentally ill perverts and excluded from protected female spaces.

Except that here we were talking about facts on whether sex is a binary or a spectrum, that was the question under discussion. We definitely weren't talking about treating anyone as "mentally ill perverts" and even if we were, obviously the criteria for exclusion from protected female spaces would be "not being female" and not "being a mentally ill pervert" - they are, after all, called "protected female spaces" and not "protected from-mentally-ill-pervert spaces."

TERFs don't care about academic rigor and biological inquiry when they campaign to exclude trans women from battered women's shelters, despite overwhelming evidence that trans women are at high risk to become victims of sexual and relationship violence.

The only campaigning I've seen regarding trans women and battered women's shelters is the nailing of a rat to the door of a battered women's shelter as well as other vandalism. Not the best aesthetic one could go for, to say the least.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Flat-Earth Antifa? The Earth is flat because Hitler (gasp! Hitler!) said it is round. What you're doing is an argumentum ad hominem. It doesn't matter if the author were literally shouting "Gas the jews!" as every second sentence, it doesn't change the fact on whether sex is a binary or not nor on whether the given argument for such fact is valid or not.



Except that here we were talking about facts on whether sex is a binary or a spectrum, that was the question under discussion. We definitely weren't talking about treating anyone as "mentally ill perverts" and even if we were, obviously the criteria for exclusion from protected female spaces would be "not being female" and not "being a mentally ill pervert" - they are, after all, called "protected female spaces" and not "protected from-mentally-ill-pervert spaces."



The only campaigning I've seen regarding trans women and battered women's shelters is the nailing of a rat to the door of a battered women's shelter as well as other vandalism. Not the best aesthetic one could go for, to say the least.

We're here because TERFs, like JK Rowling, can't let any opportunity to point out that trans women aren't "real" women pass them by without comment.

Why is JK Rowling whining about some article about providing sanitary pads to "people who menstruate" instead of just saying women? She isn't making some point about XY chromosomes or biological academic consensus, she's making the point that even token gestures of civility to trans people should be resisted. She's making the point, that is shared by many TERFs, that treating trans women as women, in any capacity big or small, is an affront to real women and a danger to feminism.

it has very little to do with biology or science and a lot to do with value judgements and group identity. Which is fine, of course, but such things are opinions and should not be treated as scientific facts.

 

[caveman1917]

We're here because TERFs, like JK Rowling, can't let any opportunity to point out that trans women aren't "real" women pass them by without comment.

No we're here because you chose to reject an argument for sex being a binary on the basis that it was published in Quillette, and getting a suitably sarcastic response:

https://quillette.com/2020/06/07/jk-rowling-is-right-sex-is-real-and-it-is-not-a-spectrum/

Here's a decent article (by a biologist) explaining that sex is not a spectrum.

Here's another, co-authored by the same author, though it's behind a paywall:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-dangerous-denial-of-sex-11581638089

Lol quillette. Every subscription comes with a free pair of skull calipers.

Imagine having an argument so bad that even people handing out free pairs of skull calipers can immediately debunk it, and rather than taking it as a sign that a better argument is needed it is taken as a point of pride.

In particular note how none of this is about what JK Rowling may or may not have had to say but about whether sex is a binary or not (which is what the Quillette article got brought up for in the first place).

Why is JK Rowling whining about some article about providing sanitary pads to "people who menstruate" instead of just saying women? She isn't making some point about XY chromosomes or biological academic consensus, she's making the point that even token gestures of civility to trans people should be resisted. She's making the point, that is shared by many TERFs, that treating trans women as women, in any capacity big or small, is an affront to real women and a danger to feminism.

it has very little to do with biology or science and a lot to do with value judgements and group identity. Which is fine, of course, but such things are opinions and should not be treated as scientific facts.

Except, again, that we weren't talking about JK Rowling but about whether sex is a binary or a spectrum, which has a lot to do with biology and science and little to do with value judgments and group identity.

 

[d4m10n]

Why is JK Rowling whining about some article about providing sanitary pads to "people who menstruate" instead of just saying women? She isn't making some point about XY chromosomes or biological academic consensus, she's making the point that even token gestures of civility to trans people should be resisted. She's making the point, that is shared by many TERFs, that treating trans women as women, in any capacity big or small, is an affront to real women and a danger to feminism.

Minor quibble here but isn't the whole "people who menstruate" token gesture about treating transmen as men rather than women?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No we're here because you chose to reject an argument for sex being a binary on the basis that it was published in Quillette, and getting a suitably sarcastic response:


In particular note how none of this is about what JK Rowling may or may not have had to say but about whether sex is a binary or not (which is what the Quillette article got brought up for in the first place).



Except, again, that we weren't talking about JK Rowling but about whether sex is a binary or a spectrum, which has a lot to do with biology and science and little to do with value judgments and group identity.

Sure, just like Quillette's articles about skull shape and algorthims had nothing to do with race-realism or neo-phrenology. They were just talking about skull shapes and neat facts about human biodiversity, how could they have known all these weirdo racists would have misunderstood their point?

The point about Quillette is that they curate content in a way, taken in its whole, is quite clearly meant to advocate a broader, reactionary ideology. It shows in the numerous examples when they've been duped by obvious frauds, it shows in the the way the tip toe up to reactionary pseudo-science, and it shows in the generally bad faith way they conduct themselves.

It's not ad-hom to say that Quillette is a rag for hacks. Everything read there should probably be cross-checked with some other publication that doesn't have such a unsavory reputation. So why even bother reading it if it can't be trusted, just read a better publication.

My entry into this long and winding thread was about JK Rowling and her constant sniping at trans people. I have no interest in getting into some tedious "facts and logic" arguments about a dogwhistling Quillete piece.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Minor quibble here but isn't the whole "people who menstruate" token gesture about treating transmen as men rather than women?

Yes, I suppose so. Rowling's point seems to come back to the idea that trans-men are actually women, and trans-women are actually men, and polite society just doesn't point this out because it might upset these mentally ill perverts.

Which is why people label her a transphobe.

 

[Meadmaker]

Except, again, that we weren't talking about JK Rowling but about whether sex is a binary or a spectrum.

To be fair, this thread did get bumped as a result of Rowling's statement. In forum threads, "what we are talking about" might vary a bit from one person to another.


Rowling herself is of no consequence to the world, as best I can tell, and there's no particular reason to even report what she said. However, because she's a celebrity, it does get reported, as do responses from the likes of Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson. It's a bit weird that we care what actors think, but we all pretend not to care, and yet we talk about it, or click on the stories, so, weird or not, it's what we do.

Anyway, I think there are worthwhile issues that are very closely related to what Rowling said, and those include some of the issues that you (Caveman) are talking about. Is sex binary? Can a sperm producing, functioning, biological male "really", be a woman? What do these terms mean? Under what circumstances should a person who cannot menstruate because they lack the required anatomy, and indeed possess functional anatomy that has generally be considered an opposite to that which results in menstruation, be allowed to share a locker room with people who menstruate?

Hmmm....that's really a mouthful isn't it? And do we have to explicitly include "people who will probably menstruate later, and people who used to menstruate"? Or can it be implied? Maybe we could use a simplified version and just hope there are people who understand that the one word descriptions are a simplification, but one which is frequently useful. Maybe we could call them, "womblyn" or "wumins" or....something?

And, maybe, Rowling was making a point about language and communication, which come to think of it, may very well be something that is actually within the realm of expertise of a writer.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, I suppose so. Rowling's point seems to come back to the idea that trans-men are actually women, and trans-women are actually men, and polite society just doesn't point this out because it might upset these mentally ill perverts.

Which is why people label her a transphobe.

I don't think she said anything about anyone being a mentally ill pervert.

But I think the rest of your first paragraph is pretty much spot on.

And, come to think of it, so is your second paragraph, assuming you take out the "mentally ill pervert" from the first paragraph.

ETA: I wish to clarify. Regardless of what Rowling says, I say that transwomen are really men, and transmen are really women. I don't think they are mentally ill perverts. However some are mentally ill, and some are perverts, just as that is true about cis men and cis women. When in the company of trans men or trans women, I do not point out that I actually think of the trans men as women, because I am part of "polite society", and we don't do that. I don't think it's important to share those beliefs. I share them here because belief sharing is what I come here for, but if I were working on a project or having lunch, I wouldn't.

As a result of those beliefs, i.e. the belief that trans women are men and trans men are women, I am called a transphobe.

So, in other words, we are in full agreement.

 

[Belz...]

Ha, no. See, I didn't say you or anyone just called it opinion, but that is literally one of the handwaves you used.

No, it's not. Literally or otherwise. Perhaps if you had taken time to actually read the post and the one I responded to you you'd know what you are talking about.

I mentioned that it was an opinion piece specifically because the other poster had claimed it was an article. It wasn't. Apparently statements of fact are hand-waves.

You also handwaved it with 'sex IS gender', which kind of gives the slight of hand changing from talking about gender to talking about sex away.

How is it a sleight of hand when I clearly and flatly say that the two terms have been historically equivalent?

The really sad part is I know you're not lying.

About what? All of the things I posted are true.

Far too many in this thread are using it as their 'proof' they're 'just being rational' on the topic

As opposed to posting from an emotional and ideological point of view? Yeah, I don't think that's a negative.

It doesn't really matter. You all aren't going to change but the rest of the world is, so whatever.

I don't think you should assume that you'll win.

Your problem here is that you're simply assuming that the things you believe in are true by virtue of being believed, which is nothing but a religious opinion. It is entirely possible, by the way, to hold a moral opinion despite hard facts. You don't need to pretend that the two align.

 

[Rolfe]

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues

 

[Belz...]

Hmmm...it seems to me you are mixing two issues there that are very different. I think the question of whether they should be excluded from protected female spaces is quite separate from whether they are mentally ill perverts.

It's also quite different from the question of whether trans women are actual women. Those are different things, but several posters here refuse to even consider that. It seems to me to stem from fear of being labeled bigots themselves, the same thing they're doing to others here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't think she said anything about anyone being a mentally ill pervert.

But I think the rest of your first paragraph is pretty much spot on.

And, come to think of it, so is your second paragraph, assuming you take out the "mentally ill pervert" from the first paragraph.

ETA: I wish to clarify. Regardless of what Rowling says, I say that transwomen are really men, and transmen are really women. I don't think they are mentally ill perverts. However some are mentally ill, and some are perverts, just as that is true about cis men and cis women. When in the company of trans men or trans women, I do not point out that I don't actually think of the trans men as women, because I am part of "polite society", and we don't do that. I don't think it's important to share those beliefs. I share them here because belief sharing is what I come here for, but if I were working on a project or having lunch, I wouldn't.

As a result of those beliefs, i.e. the belief that trans women are men and trans men are women, I am called a transphobe.

So, in other words, we are in full agreement.

I suppose the difference between you and Rowling is that Rowling seems to go out of her way to poke the bear, rather than suffer politely in silence.

Much of the criticism of her online persona is that she periodically seagulls in anti-trans comments and then cries foul when the predictable backlash comes. This strikes me as purposeful outrage farming or other trolling.

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues

Ahh yes, the long, nuanced, sympathetic essay that always follows tedious, inflammatory remarks.

Rowling is a troll.

 

[Meadmaker]

I suppose the difference between you and Rowling is that Rowling seems to go out of her way to poke the bear, rather than suffer politely in silence.

Much of the criticism of her online persona is that she periodically seagulls in anti-trans comments and then cries foul when the predictable backlash comes. This strikes me as purposeful outrage farming or other trolling.

I think an even bigger difference is that she has an audience, and I don't. (Present company excepted.)

ETA: I think it's at least somewhat fair to call her a troll, although I don't think that's a perfect description. There's no reason for her to say anything at all about trans-ness. I know I ignore that topic, and indeed most other political or controversial topics, except when I am here. When I am here, I assume that people came here specifically to talk about political or other controversial topics. When I'm on Facebook, I make no such assumption. I wish other people also made that assumption more often.