Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[JoeMorgue]

Again arguing the minutia of some "Well according to Dorland's Medical Encyclopedia" definition of edge cases seems like a point nobody is arguing.

I don't get what the Intersex discussion is supposed to prove in the Transgender discussion.

The vague "Well it proves gender isn't binary" is like saying the platypus proves that all mammal lay eggs.

 

[Ziggurat]

You admit you privilege living vs unliving equines? That's pretty racist.

I'm talking about dead horses in general, not just dead race horses.

And totally indefensible until you can present an utterly watertight philosophical argument explaining exactly what life actually is, because we can't decide how to treat anybody unless we have all the background worked out completely.

Dead horses which are beaten repeatedly are rarely watertight anymore. I speak from hard-earned experience.

Stands?! In a post about leglessness?! How dare you, sir? How very dare you! You're as unfeeling as someone who lost all their nerves in an accident and then got barred from a nerveless-only airport lounge!

Why, the nerve of you!

 

[Ziggurat]

*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.

I'm still fascinated by the possibility of mixed sex chimeras, a subject which has apparently received very little scientific attention. They would not necessarily present as intersex, but the condition might be relevant to transgenderism. One might have, for example, a genetically female brain in a genetically male body. That would look like a simple biological male.

If a transgender person discovered that they had such a condition, the information might prove useful to them. It could help them and their family come to terms with their dysphoria as having a biological basis rather than a sort of mental illness, and it would also push back against religious fundamentalist objections to transgenderism. But it's not going to make the activist base happy, because it cuts against the self-identification dogma. So it's a sort of weird possibility that people on multiple sides don't really want to look at too closely.

 

[Belz...]

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

"No you!" is not a very clever response, Giordano.

I am well aware of what intersex means.

So why are you using it as part of your argument on gender?

“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.”

That is one of several definitions. Here's another:

Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries).

Just because they are harder to identify as M or F from a cursory examination doesn't mean they're neither.

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

Again, how about you slow down, actually read the posts you reply to, and form a rational response? I repeat: Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I agree with anyone else.

Gender is how they see themselves. Sex is how other people see them

See, again this is yet another definition of gender that doesn't match any historical use of the term. What you're describing here is "gender identity".

 

[Elaedith]

Again arguing the minutia of some "Well according to Dorland's Medical Encyclopedia" definition of edge cases seems like a point nobody is arguing.

I don't get what the Intersex discussion is supposed to prove in the Transgender discussion.

The vague "Well it proves gender isn't binary" is like saying the platypus proves that all mammal lay eggs.

What you need to understand is that the gender ideology comes first, and the science is then framed to justify the ideology.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What you need to understand is that the gender ideology comes first, and the science is then framed to justify the ideology.

No I don't.

These are not Woosters. I disagree with how the interpretation is being presented, but I do not want to in anyway dismiss the reality of how difficult it is for non-traditional people to live in a world in which their personal views of themselves and the unfair categorizations society puts on them clash to this level.

I disagree with... a lot of the nuts and bolts. I stand behind that and I make no apologies for it. But they are not Figbooters or Truthers or whatnot.

They have valid distinctions they that are struggling to get across within a framework that makes it nearly impossible. I disagree with some of the paths they are taking, but I will not demonize them.

 

[Giordano]

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.

There are multiple definitions and criteria for gender. Ultimately I do think that what gender one actually believes themselves to be is the most important criteria. If you think about it that is actually how we view ourselves and lead our lives day to day. Not our karyotype, which many of us don’t even know. Not our androgen levels, ditto. And if a male was left by an accident without a penis I doubt we would deny him the right to still be considered a male.

But I started my discussion thus far here by talking about how the physical criteria routinely used to define gender, or the non scientific definition of sex as the sex of a new baby, are ambiguous and fluid themselves. That no one is pure male or pure female, and so not to get too uptight about any rigid definition.

I promised to get into knotter matters such as who uses which bathroom or plays on which team, but now I doubt that is worth it.

 

[Belz...]

But they are not Figbooters or Truthers or whatnot.

Dude, I don't know. "Gender is whatever you feel it is" sounds pretty nutty to me.

 

[Giordano]

"No you!" is not a very clever response, Giordano.



So why are you using it as part of your argument on gender?



That is one of several definitions. Here's another:

Intersex is a group of conditions where there is a discrepancy between the external genitals and the internal genitals (the testes and ovaries).

Just because they are harder to identify as M or F from a cursory examination doesn't mean they're neither.



Again, how about you slow down, actually read the posts you reply to, and form a rational response? I repeat: Disagreeing with you doesn't mean I agree with anyone else.



See, again this is yet another definition of gender that doesn't match any historical use of the term. What you're describing here is "gender identity".

I’m even okay with your definition of intersex? What is your point?

If it is difficult to tell the difference then perhaps, just perhaps, the difference is less important than one might think. WHY MUST THEY BE ASSIGNED ONE OR THE OTHER? To use a public restroom? Even to have sex? What if their partner doesn’t care? What if the person with ambiguous genitals doesn’t care if they are viewed as a male or a female by the legislature of their state? Who has the right to insist they be one or the other?

Ironically your last point was responding to a different poster, not me.

 

[Belz...]

There are multiple definitions and criteria for gender. Ultimately I do think that what gender one actually believes themselves to be is the most important criteria. If you think about it that is actually how we view ourselves and lead our lives day to day. Not our karyotype, which many of us don’t even know.

But that's not how definitions work. Language works by consensus, so going by criteria that everyone can observe usually works better, especially since there are real-life consequences to such categories. Do you not agree?

 

[Belz...]

If it is difficult to tell the difference then perhaps, just perhaps, the difference is less important than one might think.

That doesn't follow.

WHY MUST THEY BE ASSIGNED ONE OR THE OTHER? To use a public restroom?

Because public restrooms are segregated by sex! If you are arguing in favour of unisex restrooms, then sure, it's not important.

Even to have sex? What if their partner doesn’t care?

What if they do care?

Who has the right to insist they be one or the other?

It has nothing to do with rights. Why do I have to deal now with a version of you that seems to be confused by the basic realities of human existence?

The whole discussion stems from trans-women competing in women's sports. If you are arguing that sex categorisation shouldn't be a thing, then there shouldn't be women's sports at all, should there? Great, now 50% of the athlete population can't compete.

Ironically your last point was responding to a different poster, not me.

Yeah I was responding to another poster. I even put his name there. What's ironic about it?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If it is difficult to tell the difference then perhaps, just perhaps, the difference is less important than one might think. WHY MUST THEY BE ASSIGNED ONE OR THE OTHER? To use a public restroom? Even to have sex? What if their partner doesn’t care? What if the person with ambiguous genitals doesn’t care if they are viewed as a male or a female by the legislature of their state? Who has the right to insist they be one or the other?.

We've covered this. Because we have to keep straight cis-men quarantined.

Less flippantly because for 99% of the population their sexual identity is simple, consistent, and not causing them all these internal quandaries of definitions and categorization so saying "I'm a guy" or "I'm a woman" is just a useful way to get across basic useful information that most other people find useful.

And it's way easier and shorter to say "I'm a man" than it is to say "I'm a biological male who identifies as a man, presents as a man, lives my life as a man, my pronouns are him/he, I have a penis and XY chromosome" and for 99% of people that's the same thing.

You're worshipping at the Idol of the Rare Exception way too much.

 

[d4m10n]

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?

I don't think this is quite as tricky as all that.

Female humans are born with around one million oocytes, males are born with zero. If you were born with a clutch of ova, you're female as far as gametes are concerned.

As to castrati^WP, we can be pretty sure they never had any oocytes.

As to sterile adults, well, it depends on why.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sterility seems like another red herring to me.

If you take all the gas out of my Dodge Dart and out of a McLaren F1 and try to argue that means the McLaren is no longer faster you're... technically correct at best.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, they are not one or the other for the many reasons I stated.

A small penis is still a penis, is it not? A large clitoris is still a clitoris?

 

[Meadmaker]

There are multiple definitions and criteria for gender. Ultimately I do think that what gender one actually believes themselves to be is the most important criteria. If you think about it that is actually how we view ourselves and lead our lives day to day. Not our karyotype, which many of us don’t even know. Not our androgen levels, ditto. And if a male was left by an accident without a penis I doubt we would deny him the right to still be considered a male.

But I started my discussion thus far here by talking about how the physical criteria routinely used to define gender, or the non scientific definition of sex as the sex of a new baby, are ambiguous and fluid themselves. That no one is pure male or pure female, and so not to get too uptight about any rigid definition.

I promised to get into knotter matters such as who uses which bathroom or plays on which team, but now I doubt that is worth it.

Whoosh!

Or, maybe you are just on a different track.

Either way, the point is that the way you see yourself is not the way other people see you, regardless of how many definitions words have.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am going back to discussing gender, not sex, because sex is a narrow, distracting, and irrelevant aspect to what is really under discussion.

Most of the disagreements on this topic (at least in this crowd) are central to that distinction between sex and gender. There are a lot of things in society that are sex segregated, even though they use the term "women". Because up until recently, women was the polite and considerate term for an adult human female. In fact, up until fairly recently, calling a woman "a female" was considered a bit offensive and demeaning as it essentially reduced a person to livestock. The terminology is in flux, which creates confusion.

At the end of the day, "women's sports" aren't defined based on a person's self-perceived gender; they're defined based on sex. "Women's health issues" aren't based on one's personal identity; they're based on sex. And the distinction between men's prisons and women's prisons really is based on whether or not a person has a penis or a vagina.

So when it comes to transgender activism, it overlaps the concept of sex. If transwomen want to compete in women's sports, then the topic of sex necessarily has to come up. If transwomen want to be housed in women's prisons, then the topic of sex has to come up. If transrgirls want to use girl's locker rooms in high school, then the topic of penises and vaginas is pretty relevant.

 

[Arcade22]

A small penis is still a penis, is it not? A large clitoris is still a clitoris?

Given that they ultimately derive from the same organ, and since there are more than enough intersex variations of genitals, you can't maintain that kind of dichotomy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"I'm going to assume your default setting is 'rapist.'"
"Can you... like not do that?"
"*Gasps* Well that is rather derisive, don't you think?"

I have no idea what you think this means, or how it relates to me saying that your condescending mealy-mouthed "scawed widdle women" quip was a bit insulting.

To be honest, I'm not fully convinced that you know what you mean.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A person who has a penis and an XY chromosome who "identifies" as a woman is a completely different discussion than actual legit intersexual medical conditions like being brought up.

There's a difference between simply "a short person" and a person who is short because they actually have a dwarfism type medical condition but neither of them are a 6 foot 4 person who "identifies as short."

That's a great analogy