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

[d4m10n]

'Most of that paper' isn't talking about post hormonal treatment.

Did you happen to read the authors' stipulative definitions of MtF and FtM?

In this article we will use gender incongruence to refer to the condition as a whole; MtF when we refer to natal men who want to align their bodies to their female gender identity, or have begun treatment to do so, or have already transitioned; and FtM when we refer to natal women who want to align their bodies to their male gender identity, have begun treatment to do so, or have already transitioned.

Consequently, every time the authors talk about differences between MtF individuals and other individuals of their natal sex (without explicitly stating that they refer to a pre-treatment study such as the one discussed below) those measurable differences are potentially confounded by the neurological effects of hormonal treatment, a subject to which the authors dedicate an entire subsection of the paper.

More importantly that citation (Hahn et al., 2014) was conducted with trans men and women before ANY hormone treatment specifically.

I was talking about the survey paper by Kreukels & Guillamon, but we should look at the Hahn paper, as you wish:

Previously reported regional characteristics of transsexual patients mostly represent the transition of the biological sex to the actual gender identity.

These regional characteristics are the same ones you cite to in post 2629, with perhaps one possible exception.

I met your standard.

Not so, since you brought up the differences which represent the result of transition, and I quite specifically asked for pre-transition differences such as those discussed in the Hahn paper.

If you want to learn and discuss more then actually read those linked studies for comprehension and not just looking for the parts you think you can steer in the direction you want.

Have you mentioned even one specific difference that would allow us to differentiate between pre-transition MtF and the male controls in the same study? If you wanted to do so, the Hahn paper actually has more than one to choose from.

 

[theprestige]

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.

I think if there's one thing we can learn from this discussion, it's that the question does have a lot to do with value judgements and group identity - especially for transsexuals themselves.

 

[theprestige]

SuburbanTurkey, leaving aside Quillette and Rowling for a moment, what do you think qualifies someone as a woman (for example), and why?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

SuburbanTurkey, leaving aside Quillette and Rowling for a moment, what do you think qualifies someone as a woman (for example), and why?

I think gender identity is much more complicated and non-binary than simple biology. I inclined to believe anyone that earnestly perceives themselves as a woman.

I generally think the firm policing of genders is a vestigial appendage of a more patriarchal time where such clear delineation was vital.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think gender identity is much more complicated and non-binary than simple biology. I inclined to believe anyone that earnestly perceives themselves as a woman.

I generally think the firm policing of genders is a vestigial appendage of a more patriarchal time where such clear delineation was vital.

A lot of women taking off their clothes before they go swimming still think it's vital. Backward thinking I guess.

I must acknowledge that I hear a lot of people saying that segregation based on....uhhh...sex? gender? biology? Oh, you know.... is outdated these days. It is kind of backward I guess. On the other hand, most of the people who I hear say that are men. It might be just who I hang out with, though.

 

[Belz...]

You really think you're taking this seriously but failing.

That's complete nonsense. If someone think they are taking something seriously then they are, by definition.

It's the same reason Belz thinks honestly thinks I was arguing for emotional and ideological based reasoning while I was literally arguing for people to do as they SAID they were doing instead.

First of all, the two are not mutually exclusive. Second, that's not what you were doing and that I was responding to. Third, please learn the definition of the word "literally". This is the second time you've used it incorrectly.

It's strange that you didn't even try to address my points.

 

[Belz...]

I think gender identity is much more complicated and non-binary than simple biology. I inclined to believe anyone that earnestly perceives themselves as a woman.

That doesn't really answer the question, though.

 

[d4m10n]

...leaving aside Quillette and Rowling for a moment, what do you think qualifies someone as a woman (for example), and why?

I know that this has been said before, but we shouldn't expect words like women and men to always mean precisely the same thing. There is a large overlap between those who enjoy wearing women's clothing and those who require access to women's health services but the former phrase is about a set of (relatively arbitrary) social expectations and the latter is about biology.

 

[zooterkin]

And it's true. The only mistake she makes is men don't need to feel or believe he's a woman, he just has to say so. And some do just that.

She’s not making a mistake, that’s the very point she’s making.

 

[TomB]

That's my read of her position too. Basically, trans women are out of luck, because they are dangerous men, so they're not welcome.

And this is why people call her a transphobe.

perhaps the model of sex segregated spaces is outdated. We have already accepted homosexuality. What about women fleeing domestic abusers who are also women? What about lesbians in women's jails? There are way more lesbians in this world than trans women.

I think that's wrong. It implies that Rowling sees trans women as "dangerous," which I don't believe to be the case.

In the article, she relates that, for personal reasons, she is an activist for causes that protect women from abuse from men. Therefore, she advocates and supports shelters and other women only spaces. One of the essential features of these places is that access is limited to women only.

Obviously, this requires some sort of criteria for entry: "You must be a woman." OK, so what is a woman in the context of entry into the spaces in question? And how do those who administer those spaces make that determination?

The proposition of self-identification causes problems here, not because trans-people are "dangerous men," but because it provides a loophole that could be exploited by actual dangerous men to gain access.

My understanding of her position is not that trans-women should be excluded from women's spaces, but that there should be more to gaining that access than simply self-declaration. Thus, those who have transitioned (at least past a certain point) would have access.

Now, she expresses some other concerns, such as the idea that there may be a certain amount of a transgender fashion or fad resulting in over-diagnosis and some frustration with the need to use awkward language for simple concepts. Some of that may be at least partially a reaction to her experiences/feminism. But these seem like areas for discussion, rather than labeling.

As for female abusers, yes, there is a point. But Rawling's activism arises from her experiences with male abusers. Her causes address that angle.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm willing to bet that the "sex is a spectrum" crowd can't actually define the word "spectrum", and then use it to make a useful statement about sex.

Anyone care to take a shot? Give a definition of "spectrum", and then show how it applies to sex.

Extraordinarily strong bimodal distribution, in which those sample cases that fall outside of the bimodal peaks are generally considered to be genetic replication errors by the medical community: XXX, XYY, etc.

 

[d4m10n]

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

I'd be terribly interested in seeing which particular things she said that people object to here. Not paraphrases or tl;dr or "shorter Rowling" millennial snark but actual sentences she actually wrote.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

That was worth reading. There's a lot in there that I agree with. In particular, I'm 100% supportive of transpeople being treated with dignity and respect... but also displeased with the amount of hostility involved if I'm not willing to completely surrender every aspect of womanhodd to any person who wishes to claim it. One paragraph in particular resonated with me:

We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I read it. Lots of comments about her speculating that trans men are just mentally ill women permanently damaging their bodies and that she's not a bigot because she has a trans friend. She also characterizes the lesbian community as largely hostile to transgender people, which I suspect is not widely true and may only be a reflection of the circles Rowling travels in. And she repeats the argument that trans women represent a danger to women only spaces.

I feel like perhaps you skimmed it and looked for key words to be triggered by, while not actually trying to understand it at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think it's one of the more genuinely tragic parts of these types of conversations. The need to put someone who is really close to your opinion on the opposite side of the aisle, so to speak. It's something like :

"I shouldn't be beaten for my gender identity"
-damn straight

"Despite having male wedding tackle I should be able to wear a frilly dress and makeup if I want"
-right on

"Don't call me Steve, even when I forget to shave, but call me Sheila"
-will do my level best

"I should be able to compete in women's leagues in sports without restriction"
-well, I'm not settled on my opinion yet (one way or the other) on the effects of HRT and the like so I'll pass

"Lesbians who don't want to cherish my LadyPenis are bigots"
-yeah, can't agree with that part beca-

"BIGOT! TRANSPHOBE! SHAME SHAME SHAME!".


I mean you'd think it'd be a simple notion : not agreeing that transwomen are identical to biological females in every way doesn't mean you therefore think they're all deviant perverts who need a good dose of the Bible and the belt to get sorted.

You perfectly captured my own view on the topic as well as my frustration over trying to discuss it like an adult. Well done!

 

[The Atheist]

Is there any evidence of this being a common problem? We had the same panicked speculation about men molesting little girls in women's restrooms when there was push for unisex/nonbinary bathrooms in the US. Much of that speculative fear seems to have been misplaced and there has been no epidemic of trans people attacking children in public toilets.

How common, I don't know, but if I know it happens, I doubt I'm aware of the only examples of men claiming to be women with the sole objective of gaining entry to women's changing rooms.

As far as I can tell, it's not assult women, just look, so it's not like there would be any police records of it happening.

She’s not making a mistake, that’s the very point she’s making.

No, Rowling specifically talks about men who feel as though they are women - I'm talking about men who falsely claim to be trans for the sole reason of gaining access to women's personal spaces.

Go and read what she said again.

She may have meant it the way I do, but it's not how she wrote it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rowling seems to favor a "separate but equal" approach, because she surely doesn't want any icky trans people in shelters with real women. I'm sure it will work out fine for trans people.

Dude, you know what? This is a silly perspective for you to hold. A lot of the women in those shelters have been attacked and raped and beaten. They are frightened by men. Not just "oh men a little bit scary" but actually scared and terrified to be around men because of the trauma they've suffered. Having a place that is free of humans that look like males is pretty goddamned important to their mental health and well being.

I'm a supporter of trans rights and all people being treated with dignity - but "all people" ******* includes natal women too! I'm constantly taken aback at the number of people who are perfectly willing to sacrifice the by-the-fingernails progress that women biologically female people who identify as women have made over the decades on the altar of righteousness for a very few people. No big deal, that half of the population doesn't matter nearly as much as this sliver of people does.

FFS, we've even lost our own ******* term! We can't refer to ourselves as "women" without being forced to include people with penises in that category! WE end up having to refer to ourselves as "biological females" if we want to make a distinction between those of us who have the lived experience of a woman and those who had the lived experience of a man and who choose to transition to a feminine identity. We've been brought full circle to having to refer to ourselves by a term that we have all thought was horribly derogatory and dehumanizing! Livestock is referred to as female. Humans of the female variety are women. Only not anymore. Now the term woman means anyone who decides that's what they are.

I have a hard time balancing my absolute sympathy and support for transwomen against the anger I feel when a person who was raised with male privilege comes in and tries to force their wants on me, to cast their desires as more important than mine, and to browbeat and threaten people with cervixes into giving them their way.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rowlings own position seems very unclear to me. She seems to oscillate between acceptance of trans people and a strong desire to treat them as dangerous men. It strikes me as incoherent.

I can't make heads or tails of it, other than coming to the conclusion that she has general animus against trans people.

I don't see how any reasonable person would conclude that designating trans people as some group of "miscellaneous other" would have good results for these people's civil rights.

Are you trans? Are you female?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well as I said I don't give much of a toss about her, and I don't know why people bother with each other's opinions so much, but from what I understand she supports trans people but not if it's going to, in her opinion, harm women in general. It might be just a matter of numbers: putting extra effort to help minority groups is one thing, but not to the detriment of 50% of the population.

I don't think this can be said too much.

 

[Belz...]

One paragraph in particular resonated with me:

What in the blue hell is she talking about?

Re pornography, does she think that the performers in those are conscripted slaves? What is she on about?