Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TragicMonkey]

That's literally always been my point. We're putting gender stereotypes back on the table specifically to appease the concept of transgenderism

It was someone against transgenderism who called trans-girls "effeminate youths". How that's possible without sexual stereotyping?

The solution to the apparent paradox you're struggling with is that we don't have to treat people differently just because they are different, in contexts where it's not necessary. The argument between the camps on the transgender question is that last bit: where is it necessary to treat people differently based on their gender? Some think it's necessary in a lot of places, others not so many.

 

[d4m10n]

No gendered sports period. Problem solved.

Why is that not the solution?

Because I enjoy having twice as much rugby.

More seriously, though, we created weight classes in boxing and height classes in bodybuilding in order to give more people a chance to compete. Having sex segregated leagues fulfills the same function, IMO.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

It was someone against transgenderism who called trans-girls "effeminate youths". How that's possible without sexual stereotyping?

I'm hardly trying to argue that 99% of people who are against transgenderism are against specifically because they embrace those same outdated stereotypes; i.e they won't want "girly men" and "manish women."

I am well aware that I am not currently on the correct "side" as it were of this. Most people who have any issue with transgenderism have it for vile reasons, I hold no illusions as to that.

I don't doubt you can find all manner of transphobic arguments using gender stereotypes, you do not have to convince me of that.

But that doesn't make every logical issue with it brought up tainted.

The solution to the apparent paradox you're struggling with is that we don't have to treat people differently just because they are different, in contexts where it's not necessary. The argument between the camps on the transgender question is that last bit: where is it necessary to treat people differently based on their gender? Some think it's necessary in a lot of places, others not so many.

Listen I'm the last person to make some mealy-mouthed appeal to consistency just for the sake of consistency.

But expecting some sort of consistent framework to be discussed, to want to have a grasp of what is actually being asked of me beyond a shallow "Just nod and agree" truism is not unreasonable.

I don't doubt for a second that a very real... something is being felt by transgender people and I do not want to dismiss it and I certainly don't want it to lead to them being hurt, harassed, or discriminated against.

But a vague, completely internal, unverifiable and unfalsifiable, distinction without difference who's proponents actively fight against clarification of it is a center that cannot hold.

Regardless of what they are feeling and regardless of how horribly people treat them, transgender people cannot create gender stereotypes only they get to use.

 

[Meadmaker]

No gendered sports period. Problem solved.

Why is that not the solution?

I think this is where my previous reference to "I don't care. Why should you?"
comes into play.

For whatever reasons, lots of people like sports, and lots of modern people like women's sports. Getting rid of women's sports isn't an answer that is going to satisfy people who like women's sports.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm hardly trying to argue that 99% of people who are against transgenderism are against specifically because they embrace those same outdated stereotypes; i.e they won't want "girly men" and "manish women."

I am well aware that I am not currently on the correct "side" as it were of this. Most people who have any issue with transgenderism have it for vile reasons, I hold no illusions as to that.

I don't doubt you can find all manner of transphobic arguments using gender stereotypes, you do not have to convince me of that.

I'm specifically interested in the charge that trans-girls are "just effeminate youths". I'm not asking you to defend it. I'm surprised few in here have discussed how offensive that statement is.

But that doesn't make every logical issue with it brought up tainted.

Listen I'm the last person to make some mealy-mouthed appeal to consistency just for the sake of consistency.

But expecting some sort of consistent framework to be discussed, to want to have a grasp of what is actually being asked of me beyond a shallow "Just nod and agree" truism is not unreasonable.

I don't doubt for a second that a very real... something is being felt by transgender people and I do not want to dismiss it and I certainly don't want it to lead to them being hurt, harassed, or discriminated against.

But a vague, completely internal distinction without difference who's proponents actively fight against clarification of it is a center that cannot hold.

Human behavior needn't be dictated by logic. We can be nice to each other even if it doesn't have a completely solid logical base beneath every interaction.

Regardless of what they are feeling and regardless of how horribly people treat them, transgender people create gender stereotypes only they get to use.

So what? You don't know any other groups that do such things? I know of different ethnicities, sexualities, religions, professions, and even fandoms that create stereotypes they employ for themselves but would be unwelcome for others to apply. For me it's not a big deal what people think of themselves, so long as they treat others decently. I'm not going to accept anybody telling me I should behave in certain ways based on a stereotype, but it's no skin off my nose if they choose to behave in whatever way matches their own perceived stereotypes. In this specific context, a transwoman can be as "girly" as she wants so long as she doesn't insist all other girls be her idea of "girly" also.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That the two options are "wanting to pass 100% as a woman" and being "perfectly content looking like, behaving like, dressing like, and being perceived as a cis-man". Has it ever occurred to you that some people might be fine being transwomen?

No, I haven't insisted that it's only two options. I've actually been pretty clear about including a variety of possibilities. In fact, there's only ONE SINGLE possibility that causes me confusion - being perfectly content looking like, behaving like, dressing like, and being perceived as a cis-man.

What is it that you think "I have no desire to pass"means? Are you interpreting that as something different than being perfectly content looking like, behaving like, dressing like, and being perceived as cis-male?

You say some people are fine with being transwomen. As if the concept of "transwomen" does not implicitly include at least some degree of passing as a woman.

Please, for the love of whatever you care about, can you explain what you mean by that? What do you think "passing" implies? And in what way is that different from at least some attempt at being perceived as a woman? And in what way is "I have no desire to pass" distinct from being perceived as a cis-man?

 

[Emily's Cat]

The original article doesn't mention trans people at all, and neither did Rowling's sarcastic response thereto. You're just reading that in, presumably b/c you want to label Rowling as a TERF.

Until you understand why many people object to seeing the term "women" removed from phrases like "women's health" and replaced by narrower (more alienating and less unifying) phrases such as "people who require pap smears," "people who menstruate," "people who require prenatal screening" and "people who need breast exams" then you are not seriously engaging the argument here.

I think we should definitely start using long, convoluted terms like "people with prostates" and "people who make sperm" and "people with functional gonads" and "people who ejaculate" whenever we want to talk about the group of humans who would previously have been simply referred to as "man". We wouldn't want to be exclusionary.


Actually, Squeegee Beckenham and Suburban Turkey: Are you stridently arguing with all of the various organizations out there that they need to change how they're referring to men to be more inclusive? If not, why not? Why are you more concerned with things that affect women?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You're welcome to explain it to me, if you want. Rowling certainly didn't. She instead posted a long screed full of factually incorrect fearmongering about trans people.

I don't think you read it at all. There was nothing in there that could be considered factually incorrect, and there was no fearmongering about transpeople. Seriously, if you're going to take such a hard stance, at least do it based on real information instead of... whatever it is that you're filtering reality through.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are a number of different debates happening all at once around this issue. I'm honestly interested in looking into some parts of it more deeply because someone I know fairly well has recently come out as trans. I hope it's okay to say that it surprised me. I had not picked up on her dissatisfaction in any way. It makes me feel like a bit of a jerk.

Same thing with my niece. For the first 21 years of her life, she was my nephew, and never seemed to express any dissatisfaction with it. If my family were really religious or judgy, I could see that as a reason to keep quiet about it... but we're not. Pick a weirdness, be it medical, mental, or just plain kink, and we've got it. We're a very diverse collection of freak-flag-flyers, so it's not like she would have any reason to expect anything other than full support. It was a bit of a surprise to all of us.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't suppose there would be any point in pointing out that there is a big difference between an allegedly 'effeminate' boy and a trans girl.

But I will point out that anyone who accepts the idea that a boy can be 'effeminate' has already accepted that gender is social and not purely biological.

Minor quibble: gender roles are social. Gender in its entirety (which includes gender roles) is certainly not purely biological, but I doubt it's entirely social either.

But it's very hard to tease the two apart.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Personally I think the idea that gentleness, empathy, humility and sensitivity are effeminate or feminine traits is irredeemably daft.

Sorry to impugn the high intellectual authority of Wikipedia.

As a woman, so do I.

But... they are definitely expected behaviors for women in most of western society. Girls are socialized to be gentle, where boys are socialized to be rambunctious and rowdy. Girls are raised to be caring and to be very responsive to the feelings of others, boys are raised to seek self-satisfaction. Girls are taught to be humble and to present themselves as less important than others, boys are taught to be proud and confident and speak out about their personal wants. Girls are expected to be sensitive to everyone's needs around them and to put those needs before their own, boys are expected to express their needs and to seek fulfillment of them by others.

Those are part of the suite of concepts that go into "feminine/effeminate" versus "masculine". Some of it is simple appearance, which is predominantly driven by biology. A person with shoulders that are wider than their hips, with prominent biceps, and a square jawline will be perceived as masculine, regardless of their genitalia. A person with prominent breasts, shoulders thinner or the same as the width of their hips, and a rounded jawline will be perceived as feminine regardless of their genitalia.

There are additional attributes that fall somewhere in between learned behaviors and biology. For example, how a person moves, the type of gestures they make, and how they walk. Some of that is biological, especially differences in gait because males and females have different hips, and our legs actually move differently. Some of it is the result of evolutionary differences in gross and fine motor skills, where males tend to have better gross motor skills and females tend to have better fine motor skills on average. That ends up reflected in a lot of hand motions used when communicating. But some of that is also learned, and reflects the way that males and females are expected to behave, and how much space they're supposed to take up.

We had a friend years ago who I would describe as effeminate in behavior and motion. His appearance was very traditionally male... but when he walked he had more hip swish than I did, and he had very graceful hand gestures. He tended to stand in ways mostly associated with women (one hip thrust to a side, or with feet crossing over in front, at 90 degrees to each other) as opposed to stances favored by men (upright with hips centered, feet shoulder width apart, feet either pointing straight ahead or equally offset by about 45 degrees). He also had a very soft voice, and tended to not make eye contact for more than a moment before glancing away - something that is far more associated with demure women than with men.

None of those are definitive rules. But they are elements that fall into the cluster of characteristics that are usually considered "feminine".

I think they're baloney for the most part. But that's also likely because I exhibit very few, and those are mostly imposed upon me by biology.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I doubt that it is true, relative to our culture. Maybe things are different where you live.

I don't think that many in our culture who would consider gentleness, humility, empathy or sensitivity to be in any way unmasculine.
People generally ascribe effeminacy in terms of body language, manner of talking and so on.

May I ask where you're from?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm specifically interested in the charge that trans-girls are "just effeminate youths". I'm not asking you to defend it. I'm surprised few in here have discussed how offensive that statement is.

I agree that statement is offensive.

But again this is sort of my point.

When a biological man says that he identifies as a woman is that not what he doing? Assigning some quality of... some kind of femaleness of some sort (hopefully you can understand the language has to be a little impercise) to himself?

Again "Trans-girls are just effeminate" and "I am a biological male who identifies myself using feminine qualities, enough so I identify as female instead of male" are not that far apart if you strip all the baggage and context. I mean they are both sort of saying the same thing to a degree. They are both still dependant on some inherent quality that makes someone a man or a woman that exists outside pure biology.

Again I neither stupid nor cruel. I fully understand that when a transperson says one thing and a transphobe says another, even if there is some linguistic parallels between the two, the intent is massively different and those differences do matter.

Human behavior needn't be dictated by logic.

And that's 100% true but also can't be the thought terminating cliche when presented with anything and everything that doesn't make sense to someone.

We can be nice to each other even if it doesn't have a completely solid logical base beneath every interaction.

We can. We can be nice to each. We can treat it other with respect.

What we can't do is just magically think something is true or even sensical and coherent when we don't actually believe it and when "nice" starts to take on the definition of pretending we do, that's not a stable place to be. You can only pretend to understand something so much before the facade fades.

Sure I can sit here and mouth the words all day, but if I don't mean I'm gonna slip up sooner or later. I can't act like a person who thinks something I don't think 24/7 with perfect accuracy.

A biological male tells me she identifies as a female. Fine. She tells me he wishes me to use she/her pronouns. Fine, I will do so. She wishes to use the female bathroom. I fully support her in that. She wishes to play in female gendered sports. I will not oppose her.

She tells me I have to literally rewire my brain so to literally think that a biological male with a penis and an XY chromosome is a woman. I can't. I didn't say I won't, I didn't say I refuse to, I literally can't. It's asking me to image a square ball.

Again absolutely nothing in how I treat this person changes.

How is that not good enough?

And before anyone responds "Who saying it is not good enough" I again refer you to the literal point of the entire transgender concept and movement.

And before anyone response "Well if all your actions are of someone who supports trans people how would they even know you don't see them as their preferred gender" I again refer you to the literal point of the entire transgender concept and movement.

You can't argue "It doesn't matter what you think in your head as long as you accept what someone else thinks in their head."

So what? You don't know any other groups that do such things? I know of different ethnicities, sexualities, religions, professions, and even fandoms that create stereotypes they employ for themselves but would be unwelcome for others to apply. For me it's not a big deal what people think of themselves, so long as they treat others decently. I'm not going to accept anybody telling me I should behave in certain ways based on a stereotype, but it's no skin off my nose if they choose to behave in whatever way matches their own perceived stereotypes. In this specific context, a transwoman can be as "girly" as she wants so long as she doesn't insist all other girls be her idea of "girly" also.

That's not valid when the stereotype is all there is the identity.

Take away the self identified stereotypes about the gender they identify away from a transgender person and there's nothing left.

All a trans-male is is a female with an internal set of stereotypes (or characteristics if we want to use a less loaded term) about what makes a
man a man that she applies to herself.

And again that's fine. You're correct in the fact that I don't have to understand it. But the rule can't be "You don't have to understand it, but you have to pretend you understand it and maintain that illusion at all times."

This...

Transperson: "Can I use the bathroom of my choice?"
Me: "Sure"
Transperson: "Will you use my preferred pronouns?"
Me: "Sure"
Transperson: "Will you support me in my competing in sports leagues that match my gender identity?"
Me: "Sure."
Transperson: "Will you literally think of me in your head as my preferred gender?"
Me: "No. I literally can't. The criteria you are using, while I respect, simply don't exist to me."

... has to be good enough, especially when the conceit we're being asked to make is to accept that someone else's internal viewpoint is non-questionable.

And no "I conceptualize you as this gender" is not how you treat someone, it's how you think of them.

 

[Darat]

That's all that can really be said about that.

I remember that feeling from when it first came up here years ago and it seems it is really true.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It depends on the exact context, and exactly what you mean by "should". In the context of an article about menstrual health, the menstrual health professionals decided it was "people who menstruate", for reasons already gone in to at length. It was Rowling who objected to that.

You keep presenting this as if these professionals just spontaneously decided that they needed to change their terminology to be super explicit. You keep stating this as if there were no underlying pressure to be so explicit as a result of trans activists appropriating the commonly used term "women".

Now, because "women" includes people with penises who have never had ovaries or fallopian tubes or uteruses or cervixes and are 100% unable to ever menstruate... these professional feel the need to change their terminology. Up until very recently, the medical profession has never felt that there was any need to specify that things related to menstrual health we only intended for "people who menstruate".

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you ever said it's okay to group adult female people under the rubric of "women" I must have missed it. So far as I can tell, you've called that practice misgendering.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I think he's okay with lumping adult female people under the term "women", provided that adult male people can also be included in that term in all instances of its use.

So, for example, if it's in the context of something that adult female humans experience, but which is not experienced by adult male humans who identify as women, then we have to come up with a much more specific term than "women", because that would be exclusionary.

 

[The Atheist]

I just had a thought - Mike Tyson sounds very effeminate, and he's trying to get back into boxing.

Claim he's transitioning to female and win the women's world chamionship!

Under the desired outcome of trans activists, that would be perfectly fine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good post, JoeMorgue. Trimming for length.

What changes? It's not a hard or unreasonable question. I know have to treat this person functionally different because I have been given this new, valid information about them.

...

The entire concept of transgenderism is trying to create inherent factors in the... sexual dimorphism of the human species that we only use in "identity" never in any other context.


...

It's vitally important that a biological man who identifies as a woman and a biological man who identifies (or defaults) to identify as a man are treated differently, but it's also vitally important that we don't actually define what the a difference because then to not be thinking at random we'd have to treat men and women differently based on that same criteria and nobody wants that.

So a biological man and a biological woman I can't treat differently, but a biological man and a biological man who identifies as a woman I have to treat differently in some way that will literally never be defined even though that differences has to be exactly the same by definition.

This is not tenable. There cannot be no differences between the genders and sexes (that aren't already accepted as purely biological) but differences between the concept of gender and sex that don't use the same criteria.

And if I'm wrong about literally all of this we eventually do have to start defining these difference beyond "Whatever the transgender person says they are, we just have to believe them and can never question it, and every single case is its own case with no consistency or standards needed.

That's kind of the core of the problem right there. The way transwomen want to be treated reinforces a lot of the gender stereotypes and biases that are barriers to women, and by which cis-women want to STOP being judged and treated. The objectives are at odds, which is very confusing and very tangled.

Okay so having said all that let's revisit the core practical applications of this; pronouns sports and bathrooms.

Pronouns, I'm with you. I'll call a person whatever they want to be called within the bounds of reasonable grammar and concision. If you want to be called something that takes a paragraph to type out, well... sorry but you're out of luck - take your pick of he, she, or they and let's move on.

Bathrooms... for the most part agree. But you left out locker rooms and dormitories and abuse/rape shelters where that gender identity can get a bit more complex and affects people other than just the transgender person. I don't have an easy answer for that.

Sports is the most complicated but oddly enough for me the answer is simple. Sports are entertainment. The answer is whatever people want to watch. If nobody wants to watch trans-athletes compete in certain leagues they simply won't watch, the leagues fold, and nobody wins in that scenario.

Mmm... Gonna disagree here. Men don't lose. Only women lose. I'll also toss in there high school and college sports as well as olympic competitions. None of this discussion makes any difference to men's sports at all. transmen are unlikely to be competitive, because they've got the physical build of women. But women's sports... well, transmen still have the physical build of men, which makes cis-women uncompetitive in women's sports. If you are fine with yanking the rug out from under professional women's sports, fine. I don't agree, but it's an opinion. I'm not as sanguine about it when it comes to high school and college sports, where there are often scholarships involved for women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've already said that I'm not going to get into a tedious "arguing about arguing" thing. This goes exponentially so for someone who has more times than I can count misrepresented what I've said or just plain invented things out of whole cloth. Oh, and who has already said that they're likely to just assume that I'm lying anyway.

So, no, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly in the vain hope that you'll either pay attention this time or, to float a less charitable alternative, that you'll stop deliberately lying.

I don't know which of those is true. I do know that neither makes me inclined to jump through hoops for you.

You seem to believe that you've been extremely clear, and that everyone else is just trolling you or something.

I'm sorry if you keep taking this as some kind of attack, but you genuinely have NOT been clear at all. You seem to be just tap-dancing around without actually saying anything. And when asked for clarification, or to provide additional explanation, you point the finger back at the other person and put on a show of being offended while simultaneously condescending.

Nobody is asking you to jump through hoops. But it would be awfully nice if you actually said things clearly, and if you were willing to engage in actual conversation rather than accusatory insinuations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's literally always been my point. We're putting gender stereotypes back on the table specifically to appease the concept of transgenderism because, as I keep trying to get across, there has to be a difference between a cis-male and a trans-male or... this all is nothing piled on nothing with a side of nothing pulling a cart filled with nothing multiply by nothing to the power of nothing... and if that difference exist is also has to exist between men and women.

You can't have difference between cis-people and trans-people without having differences between the sexes. It's simply not logically possible.

Or... it's gender dysphoria. Which makes a whole lot of people very, very, very angry.