Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Joe Random]

I was responding to a post using the term “gender.”

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.

And I’ve explained multiple times why I refuse to narrow my discussion to “sex” rather than gender. Again if this thread has eco me a sperm vs. ovo debate, I’m out. That seems to me to be a silly attempt to find some one property to allow cis people to be the only ones who are “real” men and “real” women. And that is deeply flawed as well for the reasons I don’t feel I needlessly need to repeat.

I don’t feel I need to be limited to discussing this definition. Or I may just check out.

Genuine question : can you give a definition of 'man' or 'woman' from a gender point of view which isn't circular (e.g. 'someone who identifies as') and carries external utility? For example, in the 'man gives birth' thread a while back, the definition of 'man' was so open ended it was utterly useless.

The contrast I've used in the past is hetero- vs homosexual. I'm hetero, so I'm sexually attracted to women. If I were homosexual I'd have the same feelings, but toward men. Apply that to the gender issue. "I identify as a woman, therefore <x>, and if I identified as a man I would <y> instead.". None of the answers I've seen are anything which would have an external impact, and were only internal feelings or the like. Which is fine, but doesn't mean the world now treats you differently.

It's totally cool if an intact biological male wants to wear dresses, but that doesn't mean they're now allowed on the women's track team because they 'feel like a woman'. And it doesn't make a lesbian a bigot if she's not into going down on your ladypenis.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Not at all, if it is clear from context that the author meant "philosophical belief" in the usual rather than legal sense.

Again, here is what Rowling wrote:
"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Now let's substitute in either the usual or the legal interpretation of the phrase.

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the sense protected under British law) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

"Forstater...took her case to an employment tribunal, asking the judge to rule on whether a philosophical belief (in the general sense of the phrase) that sex is determined by biology is protected in law."

Only one of these interpretations makes any sense, the other is hopelessly tautological. You are deliberately choosing the wrong one in order to make Rowling seem malicious or incompetent.

I like how you can see that what Rowling said was wrong, and are using that to conclude that my opinion that Rowling was wrong is wrong.

I have more than once offered up the possibility that Rowling's equivocation was the result of not understanding what the words she was using meant in the context in which she was using them. That's the second option you've outlined there - that she used a legal term in a legal context, referring to a legal ruling that is clear about what that legal term means, without herself realising that that legal term has a precise legal meaning. And her using a term in a colloquial sense when referencing something that uses it in a technical sense is practically the textbook definition of equivocation. It's disingenuous to suggest otherwise - particularly if it's then followed by outlining exactly how it's equivocation.

I suppose the question you need to consider is why did she use the term "philosophical belief" at all? That's not the usual way to phrase that, except in the legal sense (and, indeed, if you google the phrase the only thing that comes up is the legal term). She's not referring to any particular school of philosophical thought, nor to any works of noted philosophers.

Do you think it's pure coincidence that she happened to use the very same legal phrase that was in the judgement she was referencing, and which the person she was advocating for described her opinion as being? She just independently came up with it and didn't realise that it was a legal term? Or did she understand that it was a legal term and deliberately chose to use it colloquially? Simply saying "a belief" or "a philosophy" would be a more usual phrasing.

I lean towards believing that an author, in an essay ostensibly about why it's important to use specific words, is likely to have taken some care with what words she used. But, again, I remain open to the possibility that she simply didn't know what the term she was using meant.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have not done that. To the contrary, I've asked for specific examples of where she got something wrong.

And have hand-waved a thread full of them by choosing to redefine the word equivocation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

We could say this about anything with the same passive voice of disdain.

"Oh so you're saying only people who predominantly use their right hands for task are real right handed people!?"

YES! Words mean things. Definitions are not sinister concepts.

 

[d4m10n]

But, again, I remain open to the possibility that she simply didn't know what the term she was using meant.

Are you open to the possibility that "philosophical belief" has a colloquial meaning that an author might reasonably expect laypeople to take from it when they encounter the phrase?

Look, you can keep on slamming Rowling for using the phrase in the sense that it has been used throughout the history of the English language rather than using it in the narrow legal sense.

Seems like a bit of a quibble, but hey whatevs. [emoji41]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.

"Transgender" is usually preferred these days over "transsexual", although it's not something that is set in stone.

 

[d4m10n]

And have hand-waved a thread full of them by choosing to redefine the word equivocation.

The first three examples were awful, it's not incumbent upon me to review the entire thread one by one.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Giordano]

What if this can be extended in the future so that trans-women can produce ova do to an ovary transplant?

https://www.infertile.com/woman-gives-birth-first-ovary-transplant-operation/

Obviously tricky: the hormones would need to be carefully balanced and to give birth they would also need a uterus, etc, transplant. But wouldn’t that completely resolve the issue of if their “sex” was now female even by the gamete test?

 

[Belz...]

I was responding to a post using the term “gender.”

Intersex is a real, common used term, as is trans-sexual.

You're still not understanding: Intersex is not a term that relates to gender!

Unless, that is, you consider that sex and gender and interchangeable terms. So which is it?

And I’ve explained multiple times why I refuse to narrow my discussion to “sex” rather than gender.

I'm not asking you to. You seem to be knee-jerk responding to my posts because you keep missing the point even though I've written that point explicitly in my posts.

I have. But you seem to have adopted it too.

Quote me, or keep your posters straight. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I agree with anyone else.

Now, are you going to look up the word "intersex" as I suggested?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If anything things like gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatments, and future possible technologies like womb or ova transplants prove the point, or at least make an entirely different one, that your sex is not a matter of your 'identity' but actual objective factors.

 

[JoeMorgue]

A person going "I'm a biological male but I identify as a woman.... therefore I am going to make actual objective physical changes (gender reassignment surgery, hormone treatments, etc) to my body in order to achieve that identity or at least get closer to it (since we can't yet like... change chromosomes to my knowledge)" makes a lot more sense to me then "I'm a biological male, but I identity as a woman, therefore as of this moment I am a woman by fiat because I say so."

 

[theprestige]

That One Crazy Person: You're not a woman without a fully developed vagina.

Cisnormative Society: Actually it's okay to be a woman without a fully developed vagina.

Transsexual: Actually I won't really feel okay about being a woman until I've gotten a reasonable facsimile of a fully developed vagina.

That Other Crazy Person: Actually it's not okay for you to think of me as a man now that I've told you I'm a woman. Yes, these are my testes, and yes I'm keeping them. Why do you ask?

 

[caveman1917]

It wasn’t that I didn’t want it to be challenged but that I was surprised it was challenged. I continue to explain why it is deeply flawed. But how many times I want to repeat my rebuttals of that one point are very limited by how narrow and irrelevant I see it to be. If this is an argument only about sperm and ova production then it is boring to me.

Well none of your explanations or rebuttals have amounted to a cogent, let alone sound, argument for your claim that biological sex is not binary. If all you have left is to argue that, if only you use your own personal specially-chosen definitions of words, you can still make the proposition true then sure, I agree this is extremely boring. Heck, you haven't even given any definition of sex such that it would not be binary in the first place.

Except for what little thrill I obtain by bringing up cis males and females who don’t make gametes at all, or “the wrong ones.”

Why would that give you a little thrill? And why do you think it's even possible for an organism to produce "the wrong types of gamete" - what does it mean to produce the "wrong" type of gamete? Wrong according to whom?

 

[caveman1917]

What if this can be extended in the future so that trans-women can produce ova do to an ovary transplant?

https://www.infertile.com/woman-gives-birth-first-ovary-transplant-operation/

Obviously tricky: the hormones would need to be carefully balanced and to give birth they would also need a uterus, etc, transplant. But wouldn’t that completely resolve the issue of if their “sex” was now female even by the gamete test?

Then that would make said individuals either "female" or "both" (depending on retention of sperm production) under the gamete definition, or such individuals would remain "male" under the SRY+androgen definition. No idea why you seem to have such difficulty applying simple definitions to simple examples.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay brass tacks time, yet again in this discussion.

Biological factors. Genital structure, chromosomes, etc. These objective facts not open for debate or discussion or "personal identity." You can not identify as a person with a penis all you want, your schlong is still there regardless of your opinion on the matter.

These is binary* and not a matter of chosen personal identity anymore than your blood type is or your eye color. These exist and are not up for debate.

*Yes edge cases of actual medical conditions causing intersexed individuals are a thing, but for 99% of the population genital structure and chromosomes and the like are a consistent binary X or Y thing.

Social factors. Society puts expectations us due to our biological factors. Men are expected to do this, Women are expected to do this. This factors are very often at best arbitrary, at worse downright discriminatory or unfair and people have every right to fight against these unwanted expectations.

These shouldn't exist. They are not actual real world objective factors, they are ones created by societies. Mens wear this, women wear this. Men act this way, women act this way. Men hold these jobs, women hold these jobs.

Which one of those is "sex" and which one is "gender" I'm so completely over caring because the more people harp on about the difference being there the less they all seem in explaining that difference. So whatever. One is sex and one is gender. Or the other one is sex and the other one is gender. Or they are both sex. Or both gender. Or one is sex is the other one is Dancing the Charleston in a Tricorner Hat While Wearing Lederhosen. I don't care.

Now the transgender discussion always seems to wind up with a lot people arguing, without ever clarifying, from the position of some third category of completely internal distinction, something that's not inherently biological like genital structure or whatever but also not socially mandated like "Only women can wear" makeup and that's when the whole thing falls apart and puts right back at the "What I'm supposed to think differently?" question which I still haven't gotten anything resembling a valid answer to.

Okay. You're a biological man that identifies as a woman. What changes? I'm still not letting this go.

You don't want a penis anymore? Well sorry... can't help you there. A good surgeon could but that takes us right back to "Well that's just admitting that something physical has to change in order for your sexual identity to change."

You want to wear dresses instead of slacks? Fine I don't care that doesn't make you a woman, it's makes you a guy who wears dresses and there's nothing wrong that but men don't have to wear slacks and women don't have to wear dresses so I can't use that as some defining factor. Again when can't have gender stereotypes which only exist when they are subverted. So again nothing changes because "Wears dress" isn't a requirement to be a woman in my head, so you wearing one doesn't make you one. In order for you wearing a dress to make you a woman, I'd have to assign "Dress wearing" to women as a defining factor and I will not do that.

And then we just wind up right back at vague pleadings about "Being considered a woman" or "identifying as a woman" which is totally meaningless which you've removed all defining factors from the term and pure passive aggressive "Oh just do what they want, it doesn't hurt anything, why does it matter?" nonsense.

 

[Giordano]

Then that would make said individuals either "female" or "both" (depending on retention of sperm production) under the gamete definition, or such individuals would remain "male" under the SRY+androgen definition. No idea why you seem to have such difficulty applying simple definitions to simple examples.

SRY + androgen definition is useless if one doesn’t have androgen receptors. It is as if you don’t have androgen at all. Plus there are XX women with more androgen than XY men. And trans-men receive a lot of androgen therapy, but to conceive with an ovary transplant one would probably be given a lot of estrogen and progesterones.

But my point is the senselessness of these definitions for the real topic of importance. An XY CAIS person appears to be completely female externally. Rumors have it that famous sexy actresses in were CAIS females. Do their XY karyotype matter or their SRY gene or the production of high androgens (which are really in practice the same thing) for how society viewed them, or should view them? Should they have been restricted to using the men’s restroom? Forced to compete in the Best male actor category of the Oscars? Those are the issues I thought this thread was about. Again if wrong I don’t need to stay here.

 

[d4m10n]

Now the transgender discussion always seems to wind up with a lot people arguing, without ever clarifying, from the position of some third category of completely internal distinction, something that's not inherently biological like genital structure or whatever but also not socially mandated like "Only women can wear" makeup and that's when the whole thing falls apart and puts right back at the "What I'm supposed to think differently?" question which I still haven't gotten anything resembling a valid answer to.

The first category you described sounds like "sex" (a set of genetic, primary and secondary physical characteristics which are usually aligned with each other) whereas the second one sounds like "gender expression" to me. The third category quoted above sounds like "gender identity." I think these are all covered in the approved definitions I linked from post 211.

 

[Giordano]

Well none of your explanations or rebuttals have amounted to a cogent, let alone sound, argument for your claim that biological sex is not binary. If all you have left is to argue that, if only you use your own personal specially-chosen definitions of words, you can still make the proposition true then sure, I agree this is extremely boring. Heck, you haven't even given any definition of sex such that it would not be binary in the first place.



Why would that give you a little thrill? And why do you think it's even possible for an organism to produce "the wrong types of gamete" - what does it mean to produce the "wrong" type of gamete? Wrong according to whom?

I’m being selective? I am arguing the broader, multi-criteria for defining men and women. I am arguing that gender, not sex, is the core of how trans people see themselves and how they are viewed by others. No one knows if they are producing sperm or ova or neither, nor do most people care. If a sexy women attracts your eye in a bar are you thinking about her gametes before you decide if you are attracted or not? When she walks into a restroom? Competes for Best Actress?

I have yet to see a reasonable response for my argument that if sex identity depends solely on producing sperm or ova, then what are young children, sterile adults, castrated males, or post menapausal women? Are they neither male nor female as some have tried to respond? Is that a practical definition? Is that how society actually views these people? Do we routinely assay for sperm or ova before we consider someone male or female? Unless you’ve had kids chances are you don’t even know the scientific status of your own gametes. Are you sure of your own sex?

The wrong gametes was referring to CAIS females, who the poster considered females (properly IMO) even though they produce (immature) sperm like prepubescent cis boys.

 

[Giordano]

You're still not understanding: Intersex is not a term that relates to gender!

Unless, that is, you consider that sex and gender and interchangeable terms. So which is it?



I'm not asking you to. You seem to be knee-jerk responding to my posts because you keep missing the point even though I've written that point explicitly in my posts.



Quote me, or keep your posters straight. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I agree with anyone else.

Now, are you going to look up the word "intersex" as I suggested?

Please read what I write without the filter of what you would like to refute.

I am well aware of what intersex means. A big component of what I do involves endocrinology as well as cancer. Different people with different agendas like different definitions, But here is a nice solid definition from Planned Parenthood that most accept:

“Intersex is a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn't fit the boxes of “female” or “male.” Sometimes doctors do surgeries on intersex babies and children to make their bodies fit binary ideas of “male” or “female”.“

I have repeatedly stated that gender and sex (as defined here) are not the same, that gender is a much better term capturing what is the more important discussion.

If you don’t agree with the definition of sex meaning gamete type then why take me to task for my questioning of it? Why take me to task for preferring the broader criteria used for gender?

 

[Meadmaker]

I’m being selective? I am arguing the broader, multi-criteria for defining men and women. I am arguing that gender, not sex, is the core of how trans people see themselves and how they are viewed by others.

Gender is how they see themselves. Sex is how other people see them, especially after they take off their clothes.

The difference between what you said and what I said is really important for understanding the major transgender fights of the day. In the locker room, a biological male will be seen as male. People talk about how someone "presents". The thing is, once you take off your clothes, you're going to present as whatever is between your legs.


That's something that the trans rights activists just can't seem to wrap their head around.