Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Belz...]

Not necessarily. Such people might choose to live as an unspecified third gender, or no gender at all, if given that option. Up until now there were generally only two options offered. We can't conclude based on a very limited menu that only those foods exist.

Unspecified third gender seems to be pretty meaningless to me. Could you specify the unspecified?

Yeah, but up until now only two options were offered, so people assumed it must be naturally binary.

BZZZT! Wrong. Up until now only two options were offered BECAUSE it was naturally binary.

I'm not clear on what gender is even supposed to be.

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

You're welcome.

 

[theprestige]

Gheg or Tosk? Which of the two major groups of Albanian dialects do you speak? It's a binary choice: either Gheg, or Tosk? I refuse to consider the possibility that non-Albanian languages exist, therefore it's definitely a binary choice. Which are you?

The question was about the two major dialects of Albanian. Pointing out the existence of languages other than Albanian doesn't create a third major Albanian dialect choice. Rejecting both major dialects doesn't create a third major dialect. There's still only two such dialects.

Anyway, the analogy breaks down pretty quick. Rather than quibble over it, let's go back to the debate about (non)binary gender as such.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't think this is nearly as difficult as you're making it out to be, at least 99% of the time. People born with testes and functional androgen receptors will eventually undergo the virilizing effects of endogenous testosterone, at which point they would start to acquire something of an unfair advantage in women's rugby, weightlifting, etc.

When does the percentage matter? Can I get an exact percentage, so that we can totally ignore the existence of all intersex people while at the same time agreeing to treat them as things they clearly are not because it would be rude otherwise.

There is a lot of special pleading to ignore the existence of some people because they mess things up. Yet when we try that with slightly larger minorities suddenly it is all oppression or something.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Unspecified third gender seems to be pretty meaningless to me. Could you specify the unspecified?

And remove the mystique? Never!

BZZZT! Wrong. Up until now only two options were offered BECAUSE it was naturally binary.

Seems like a chicken/egg question to me.

either of the two sexes (male and female), especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones.

But societies and cultures differ from each other. For instance, in some cultures men wear skirts and women wear trousers, so gender expectations are the opposite of other cultures. Does that mean a given behavior can be either male gender or female gender depending on location?

You're welcome.

Yeah, I'd hold off the smugness on this one, seeing how many people in this thread disagree with your definition.

 

[Belz...]

Seems like a chicken/egg question to me.

Let's call it an alternate interpretation. Do you have any reason to think it's incorrect?

But societies and cultures differ from each other. For instance, in some cultures men wear skirts and women wear trousers, so gender expectations are the opposite of other cultures.

And this makes the definition wrong how?

Yeah, I'd hold off the smugness on this one, seeing how many people in this thread disagree with your definition.

It's not my definition. It's from a dictionary.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Let's call it an alternate interpretation. Do you have any reason to think it's incorrect?

Well, there's three whole threads now debating the question. If it were that clear this conversation wouldn't be happening.

And this makes the definition wrong how?

I don't know that it's wrong, as I don't know who could determine wrongness or rightness. Your definition is curious because it separates gender from physical sex and makes it purely subject to culture. A person is wearing a flowing garment. If they're in the West they're being female gender...unless they're a priest in a robe, in which case they're being male gender. Although in some denominations priests can be women, in which case she's female gender again despite wearing a male gender variant of female gender dress.

I think your definition is too vague to be useful.

It's not my definition. It's from a dictionary.

Oh, well, then, I guess we can end several threads on that august authority.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well, there's three whole threads now debating the question. If it were that clear this conversation wouldn't be happening.

No there's three threads where literally no clarification as to what any distinction is behind made still hasn't occurred.

We've gotten sidejacks about totally different categorizations and vague allusions to "Oh just shut up and do whatever they say." That's it.

Oh, well, then, I guess we can end several threads on that august authority.

Well something has to or we're all going to be bigots because we think

Every discussion can't be a semantic circle jerk forever.

And no I don't want to have the same sad "Well just don't care what people think" discussion with you yet again.

 

[TragicMonkey]

No there's three threads where literally no clarification as to what any distinction is behind made still hasn't occurred.

We've gotten sidejacks about totally different categorizations and vague allusions to "Oh just shut up and do whatever they say." That's it.



Well something has to or we're all going to be bigots because we think

Every discussion can't be a semantic circle jerk forever.

Do you agree with Belz's definition of gender, then? Because a few posts ago you didn't seem to! Does this last post mean you've decided to accept this definition out of convenience and because you're bored by discussion, and therefore willing to accept what he says as authoritative just to end it? That's not exactly intellectually integritous. If you're bored by these threads take a break from them.

 

[d4m10n]

When does the percentage matter?

It tells you how close you are to solving the problem of who should be in allowed in women's sport.

Can I get an exact percentage, so that we can totally ignore the existence of all intersex people while at the same time agreeing to treat them as things they clearly are not because it would be rude otherwise.

If you're asking which intersex individuals should be treated as women for the sake of women's sport in particular, I think my answer above should be sufficient almost all of the time. Are there some specific difficult edge cases you were hoping to discuss?

ETA: I'm talking about sex-segregated sports here b/c of the OP, but I don't expect the solution that works for sports will necessarily work for, say, changing rooms or much of anything else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you agree with Belz's definition of gender, then? Because a few posts ago you didn't seem to!

You're missing the point. It's not a matter of if I agree with you or Belz per se, no more so then if you two were screaming at each about "Five fingers!" "No four fingers and thumb!"

We don't have to agree on pure, meaningless differences in terminology in order to get a straight, simple answer from ******* ANYONE as to what we're supposed to be doing here.

The person screaming "Five fingers!" and the person screaming "Four fingers and a thumb" aren't actually having a debate about how many digits a human hand has.

But when the discussion is that and it never moves beyond that... what are we doing?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You're missing the point. It's not a matter of if I agree with you or Belz per se, no more so then if you two were screaming at each about "Five fingers!" "No four fingers and thumb!"

We don't have to agree on pure, meaningless differences in terminology in order to get a straight, simple answer from ******* ANYONE as to what we're supposed to be doing here.

The person screaming "Five fingers!" and the person screaming "Four fingers and a thumb" aren't actually having a debate about how many digits a human hand has.

But when the discussion is that and it never moves beyond that... what are we doing?

Uh, talking. It's a conversation. It's not mandatory to be in, or to agree with anybody's remarks if you are. I thought it was actually headed into more productive waters today, including your own post.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It tells you how close you are to solving the problem of who should be in allowed in women's sport.



If you're asking which intersex individuals should be treated as women for the sake of women's sport in particular, I think my answer above should be sufficient almost all of the time. Are there some specific difficult edge cases you were hoping to discuss?

Why are you now injecting sport into this? I have been clear that as someone who was no longer a man Lance Armstrong shouldn't have been allowed to compete with real men. Eunuchs are not men and so as a Eunuch he shouldn't be allowed to compete with men.

Why is the fact that Eunuchs are not Men so upsetting to people? This whole Eunuchs are men is against all history and biology after all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Uh, talking. It's a conversation. It's not mandatory to be in, or to agree with anybody's remarks if you are. I thought it was actually headed into more productive waters today, including your own post.

Okay seriously TM your random signal drops into "Oh it's just talking" thing is approaching Bob levels.

I'm done explaining to you why this discussion actually matters over and over, or at the very least I'm done having to stop mid-breathe to justify to you why I at least think it matters.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know that it's wrong, as I don't know who could determine wrongness or rightness.

Gee, if only we had some sort of methodological discipline whose job it was to determine these things!

Your definition is curious because it separates gender from physical sex and makes it purely subject to culture.

First of all, it does no such thing. You apparently have misread what I posted.

Second, would you rather I had said that gender and sex are synonymous? After all these threads of getting told gender is about culture, now you object to the idea?

A person is wearing a flowing garment. If they're in the West they're being female gender...unless they're a priest in a robe, in which case they're being male gender. Although in some denominations priests can be women, in which case she's female gender again despite wearing a male gender variant of female gender dress.

I don't know why you think clothing is relevant here.

Oh, well, then, I guess we can end several threads on that august authority.

Hug ne broth drab lizard for pin que tard.

You're right. Who needs agreed-upon definitions for words when we can just make them up as go along! It's much clearer that way.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Okay seriously TM your random signal drops into "Oh it's just talking" thing is approaching Bob levels.

I'm done explaining to you why this discussion actually matters over and over, or at the very least I'm done having to stop mid-breathe to justify to you why I at least think it matters.

I thought we were actually getting along, but I guess not. Tone isn't always conveyed accurately through short text. I think I'm going to take a break myself from this, as I appear to be upsetting people.

 

[d4m10n]

Why are you now injecting sport into this?

Because the OP was about women's sport in particular.

(I don't usually catch flak for being too on topic, but hey there's always a first time.)

I have been clear that as someone who was no longer a man Lance Armstrong shouldn't have been allowed to compete with real men.

What is the relevant policy here? I wasn't even aware that top level cycling had a category set aside just for men.

Why is the fact that Eunuchs are not Men so upsetting to people?

LOL wut.

 

[Belz...]

LOL wut.

See, it's performance art. Ponderingturtle's entire shtick is to strawman other positions. Here he's pretending to espouse a crazy idea in an attempt to parallel what he sees is our argument re transgenderism.

Of course all he does is betray his lack of understanding of said argument, as usual.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think his point is a rather neat deconstruction of the TERF position.

I don't think it is though. I think it's a rather neat deconstruction of a strawman that he's wedging in and pretending is the TERF position.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What is the problem with pointing out that they are not female, you claim there is nothing insulting or problematic about it, so why the vehemence with making it mandatory that these questionable cases be included? This is about accuracy and biology after all nothing that anyone should find insulting.

What are you even talking about? What vehemence with respect to what topic? What is it that I want to make mandatory?

And what the hell does it have to do with noting your logical fallacy? Saying "males cannot have babies" is not logically equivalent to saying "anyone who can't have babies is male".

If [A = person is male], then [B = person can't have babies] <> If [B = person can't have babies], then [A = person is male].

Just to make it even more clear, let me remove the potentially confusiong specificity out of it, and bring it back around to critical thinking:

If A then B is not equivalent to If B then A.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Reproduction makes a nice bright line binary, yet you actually base decisions on this and people think you are being horrible for telling people they are not men or women anymore due to various surgeries or birth defects.

Nobody is doing that. You're arguing against a strawman of your own creation.