Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[The Atheist]

Not in reply to any particular post, but for the sake of clarification what exactly do "cis men" and "trans men" have in common which put them all in the same category?

Short hair.

 

[d4m10n]

Well now that makes me just about as manly as anyone can get.

 

[tyr_13]

I haven't once just made a blanket referral to "biological sex" without actually explaining the context in which I was using in it and the point I was trying to make. The fact that you sit there and just hit the "Transgender Argument 101 Canned Argument #4 Button" says that you just looks for keywords in arguments you have premade retorts to.

Do you have an actual point to make or are you just going to shout Tumblr approved slogans at me until you just call me a transphobe and declare yourself the winner?

Oh man, I better get a refund on my Tumblr membership fees seeing as they provided me with a 'canned argument' for keywords you didn't use.

Yeah, if you cut out ALL the entire rest of the post and assume that you are the only person in the conversation even though this forum isn't the only place this is being discussed, this isn't the only thread even on this forum this is being discussed, you aren't the only other poster in this thread, and you weren't even the only person I quoted in that post, then yes, I made no points.

Your persecution complex is silly and if you want to try addressing what I said, go for it. Cutting out one sentence and removing the context of the entire post isn't it. If you actually want answers, try thinking about what you're saying. Declaring yourself the victim of non-existent false accusations of bigotry is in 'not even wrong' territory.

Yes, of course. No one who is not deliberately obtuse could possibly ever disagree with you. It couldn't possibly be that the definitions provided are weak or downright useless. It couldn't be on you.

Literally completely wrong. Being deliberately obtuse wasn't supported by the posters here disagreeing with me. There are at least two posters whose conclusions I strongly disagree with but have shown the ability and willingness to actually absorb the terminology and arguments. Being populated with several people like you who are determinedly obtuse was cited as a reason the usage of the terms here isn't a good sample of the usage of the terms. And it is.

The definitions are not only very useful, they are not on me. They're part of the vocabulary that has been built up over many years of informal discussion and formal research, and recognized by being the standard definitions used by organizations and research guidelines from places like John Hopkins, Cornell, and the APA. That you and others pitch a fit over the utility of the definitions that professional psychologists use and endorse after consulting with use linguists is just another reason that this discussion here is stuck at the remedial level forever. The experts know more than you, and they aren't even just stipulated definitions for the purpose of papers.

So if you'd like to make an argument over why they lack utility despite my using them to explain things in the last few posts and the literal experts disagreeing, have at it.

However, your assessment right now means nothing; I've seen your rationalizations.

 

[Belz...]

Being populated with several people like you who are determinedly obtuse was cited as a reason the usage of the terms here isn't a good sample of the usage of the terms. And it is.

That doesn't make any difference. You have not provided a distinction between the two groups you have just listed. In fact I suspect, that you have created the second group out of thin air as a means to rhetorically give yourself justification for calling the first group obtuse.

The definitions are not only very useful, they are not on me.

None of that changes the fact that they are not useful for the reasons posted here. That you refuse to accept that makes you obtuse, not me. Do you seriously believe that providing a definition automatically means people should accept it? I'm very willing to accept definitions for the sake of argument but they have to make sense.

So if you'd like to make an argument over why they lack utility despite my using them to explain things in the last few posts and the literal experts disagreeing, have at it.

You want me to make an argument for a lack of something? Have you learned nothing of your time here? How about you explain in what way they are useful, since you're the one claiming that they are?

However, your assessment right now means nothing; I've seen your rationalizations.

Ad hominem. This just proves that your request for an argument earlier in the post was a lie. You have no intention to even consider anything I have to say, which supports my analysis above.

 

[tyr_13]

That doesn't make any difference. You have not provided a distinction between the two groups you have just listed. In fact I suspect, that you have created the second group out of thin air as a means to rhetorically give yourself justification for calling the first group obtuse.

Nope, but you'll believe it anyway because it makes your rationalizations easier. And yes it makes a difference.

None of that changes the fact that they are not useful for the reasons posted here. That you refuse to accept that makes you obtuse, not me. Do you seriously believe that providing a definition automatically means people should accept it? I'm very willing to accept definitions for the sake of argument but they have to make sense.

You're not willing in the least. You've made no argument. You've just made assertions. I showed how the definitions have utility by using them. You saying 'NOPE!' doesn't matter. It's just you being deliberately obtuse, again, and acting like that is evidence of, well, anything.

You want me to make an argument for a lack of something? Have you learned nothing of your time here? How about you explain in what way they are useful, since you're the one claiming that they are?

I showed how they had utility. You claim they don't. You have no argument for this other than 'nope'. You could make the argument they don't because the previous listed ones have the same or better utility, but you won't, both because they don't but because you're still confident you don't have to support, well, anything.

Ad hominem. This just proves that your request for an argument earlier in the post was a lie. You have no intention to even consider anything I have to say, which supports my analysis above.

Citing your failure of reasoning on the same subject as reasons to dismiss your assertions on the subject isn't an ad hom. I have no intention of giving your assertions weight because of that. If you want to make an argument, that will stand or fall on it's own merits.

But again, you won't.

Thanks for showing what doesn't have utility though; engaging you on this topic. Have fun.

 

[Belz...]

Nope, but you'll believe it anyway because it makes your rationalizations easier.

There's no rationalisation involved. You have not established a difference between the two. The distinction you've tried to make is that some accept your definition but disagree with it, and that I do not accept your definition. It apparently has not crossed your mind that the reason I do not accept your definition is that I _have_ considered it and found that I disagree with it. In other words, it's the exact same thing. You've just arbitrarily and unilaterally decided that my disagreement is not justified and other posters' are.

That is what I took issue with.

You're not willing in the least.

Stop lying. I've tried over and over for many years to get you to participate in conversations honestly and to make cogent arguments, and at every turn you foil me by continuing your games and personalisations. You don't get to tell me that I'm not making significant efforts to get somewhere with you until you get rid of that beam in your eye. Stick to the damned topic rather than trying to find excuses why your arguments are weak.

You've made no argument. You've just made assertions.

I have made arguments. And the one most relevant now is that I find the definitions provided in this thread to be vague and unhelpful, and I've also appealed for an actual definition that makes sense. I'm not sure how you expect me to be more detailed about that.

I showed how they had utility. You claim they don't. You have no argument for this other than 'nope'.

No, you have claimed that they have utility because they're in use, but you've not managed to explain that utility. It's interesting that you mistake your claims for demonstrations and my arguments for claims.

Citing your failure of reasoning on the same subject as reasons to dismiss your assertions on the subject isn't an ad hom.

Who do you think you're fooling here? You continually engage me just to tell me that making an actual argument is pointless because it won't convince me. Well, that's not a failure of mine. It's an excuse of yours based on an assessment of my supposed future actions. It's an ad hominem because it has nothing to do with the discussion, but rather with me.

As I said, you think your declarations and claims are arguments, and that other people's arguments are claims.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Not in reply to any particular post, but for the sake of clarification what exactly do "cis men" and "trans men" have in common which put them all in the same category? Is it the way we're perceived by other people? Secondary sexual characteristics? A personal subjective sense of masculinty? All of the above? Some of the above? None of the above?

Good luck. I've been asking, screaming, begging, everything short of bribing anyone who'll listen for an answer to this question for a long, long, long time now.

You won't be graced with an answer that isn't a vague, open ended "Well it's complicated..." that never advances beyond that.

 

[Belz...]

Good luck. I've been asking, screaming, begging, everything short of bribing anyone who'll listen for an answer to this question for a long, long, long time now.

You won't be graced with an answer that isn't a vague, open ended "Well it's complicated..." that never advances beyond that.

Welcome to the Deliberately Obtuse Party, my friend.

 

[Joe Random]

This past December one Friday night around 3am I couldn't get to sleep and was seriously hungry, so I decided to go grab something to eat. There was a Subway nearby so I decided to walk despite how cold it was. I got myself a tasty tuna salad on wheat bread and headed back home. As I rounded a corner I saw two guys in MAGA hats shoving and punching someone in a dress. As I got closer I saw the dress-wearer was male and the MAGA guys were also hurling verbal abuse at him.

Dropping my sub I stepped between them and demanded the MAGA guys explain why they were harassing the dress wearer. "Well, look at it," they answered. "It's wearing a dress - it's obviously a weirdo and a perv, and probably a child molester, too!"

"You're wrong," I retorted. "Just because a man feels more comfortable wearing a dress doesn't mean he's a pervert. Now leave him alone or I'm calling the cops."

That was when a felt something hit me in the back of the head. I turned around and the dress wearer was swinging a purse at me repeatedly. "Man?! Him?! Stop misgendering me you ******* transphobe!!". Dress wearer then stormed off into the night, calling a friend to tell them all about the horrible bigot with tuna breath who just assaulted ... erm, her.



Yes, hyperbolic I know. But it illustrates what I think is the single most frustrating dynamic in these discussions.

 

[theprestige]

This past December one Friday night around 3am I couldn't get to sleep and was seriously hungry, so I decided to go grab something to eat. There was a Subway nearby so I decided to walk despite how cold it was. I got myself a tasty tuna salad on wheat bread and headed back home. As I rounded a corner I saw two guys in MAGA hats shoving and punching someone in a dress. As I got closer I saw the dress-wearer was male and the MAGA guys were also hurling verbal abuse at him.

Dropping my sub I stepped between them and demanded the MAGA guys explain why they were harassing the dress wearer. "Well, look at it," they answered. "It's wearing a dress - it's obviously a weirdo and a perv, and probably a child molester, too!"

"You're wrong," I retorted. "Just because a man feels more comfortable wearing a dress doesn't mean he's a pervert. Now leave him alone or I'm calling the cops."

That was when a felt something hit me in the back of the head. I turned around and the dress wearer was swinging a purse at me repeatedly. "Man?! Him?! Stop misgendering me you ******* transphobe!!". Dress wearer then stormed off into the night, calling a friend to tell them all about the horrible bigot with tuna breath who just assaulted ... erm, her.



Yes, hyperbolic I know. But it illustrates what I think is the single most frustrating dynamic in these discussions.

Needs work. Next time make it two women assaulting a transwoman and getting their asses beat because, you know, transwomen are kinda men.

 

[theprestige]

Not in reply to any particular post, but for the sake of clarification what exactly do "cis men" and "trans men" have in common which put them all in the same category? Is it the way we're perceived by other people? Secondary sexual characteristics? A personal subjective sense of masculinty? All of the above? Some of the above? None of the above?

I hadn't really thought about like that before. It's kind of a tough question, though.

At first glance, it seems obvious to me that it's the personal subjective sense of masculinity: "I think I'm a man, therefore I should be in the same category as everyone else who thinks they're a man."

But what is that category?

The category is the way we're perceived by other people. "I think I'm a man, therefore I should be perceived as a man by other people." But that's definitely *not* something transmen have in common with cismen.

That's pretty much the heart of the problem, I think: The category is based on the perceptions of others, but transmen want their perception of themselves to put them in the category.

I also think, now that you've got me thinking about it, that maybe it's the wrong question. Maybe the right question is, "when my self-perception and the perception of others is at odds, which one should prevail in society?"

And I think maybe the answer is, "it's complicated, it depends, and there's always going to be circumstances that nobody is happy with."

 

[Belz...]

Maybe the right question is, "when my self-perception and the perception of others is at odds, which one should prevail in society?"

Well it depends on whether we're talking about something that is objective is subjective. Someone can think you look angry even when you're not, etc. But in this case I really don't think we're talking about something like that.

 

[tyr_13]

This past December one Friday night around 3am I couldn't get to sleep and was seriously hungry, so I decided to go grab something to eat. There was a Subway nearby so I decided to walk despite how cold it was. I got myself a tasty tuna salad on wheat bread and headed back home. As I rounded a corner I saw two guys in MAGA hats shoving and punching someone in a dress. As I got closer I saw the dress-wearer was male and the MAGA guys were also hurling verbal abuse at him.

Dropping my sub I stepped between them and demanded the MAGA guys explain why they were harassing the dress wearer. "Well, look at it," they answered. "It's wearing a dress - it's obviously a weirdo and a perv, and probably a child molester, too!"

"You're wrong," I retorted. "Just because a man feels more comfortable wearing a dress doesn't mean he's a pervert. Now leave him alone or I'm calling the cops."

That was when a felt something hit me in the back of the head. I turned around and the dress wearer was swinging a purse at me repeatedly. "Man?! Him?! Stop misgendering me you ******* transphobe!!". Dress wearer then stormed off into the night, calling a friend to tell them all about the horrible bigot with tuna breath who just assaulted ... erm, her.



Yes, hyperbolic I know. But it illustrates what I think is the single most frustrating dynamic in these discussions.

Have you, personally, even ever been corrected on using the wrong pronoun in real life?

No, the most frustrating dynamic is that people get so offended on being corrected, politely or not, they start viewing the entire subject with undue suspicion all because someone who probably isn't even trans might call them or even just think of them as a bigot. It's exactly the same as being more worried about being called a racist than that other people are still being racist.

Furthermore, most trans gender people don't even correct others who misgender them the overwhelming majority of the time. This is due to many factors that fluctuate in importance for the specific interaction that range between exhaustion, to not wanting to take the time to explain, to fear of offending the other person because that person might think you're calling them a bigot, to not wanting to take the time to hear the person explain how their not a bigot and oh don't you know what I've done for my misguided niece, to not wanting to be ******* murdered.

I get that you don't want people to think badly of you. You don't want to do badly to others either. But that's not even something trans gender people get out of. They know even politely correcting someone one their pronouns can get that oh so entitled 'are you calling me a bigot' reaction, even if it didn't even cross their minds to think of the other person as a bigot. Yeah, it sucks that you, the personal you, don't want to be a bigot or seen as one. But choose one for primacy. Which is more important; not being a bigot or not being seen as a bigot. To someone, somewhere. That's always going to be the dynamic in cases like this, and that isn't a problem unique to trans gender issues. It's the same way with racism, sexism, all the major labeled bigotries. You have to be able to make peace with the fact that someone, somewhere, is going to think badly of you. You and I usually get the benefit of not having to worry about our physical safety when they do (except that I'm a 'commie race traitor' likely to be stabbed on a train).

Overwhelmingly trans gender people care much more about trying to get it right than getting it right all the time. They only get upset on bad days, you know being human, or when it looks like someone is doing it intentionally. The chances are good that anyone who says, 'did you just misgender them!' is doing so specifically to mock and demean trans gender people. Next in likelihood is a well meaning but over zealous ally. The least likely is an actual trans gender person, and when it happens it's probably more to do with the trauma they were just experiencing than with you.

I spend a LOT of time with trans gender people (and LGBTQ+ people in general). The ONLY time someone has gotten angry at me for 'misgendering' them was when I was defending another friend from the trans woman's romantic advances that were clearly causing my friend distress. I used 'dude!' as a simple surprise exclamation to their persistence in trying to get my friend's contact information. She walked away shouting, in a crowded convention, "WHY IS EVERYONE MISGENDERING ME!!!"

This is when my friend broke down in tears, and the other two (one non-binary and one cis woman lesbian if it's important) explained that they had been trying to get away from that trans woman because she had weirdly forced a kiss on the friend right before I met up with them. Another friend, a trans woman, came up and asked what was going on and why someone was yelling at me for misgendering them, and when she was brought up to speed I had to stop her from going after the harasser because she was ready to throw down on that 'performative bitch'. I advised my friend that had been assaulted to file a police report. We notified convention staff, they took us to the staff room, and we gave the police a report from there. The assailant was ejected from the convention complaining loudly about it, and my bigotry.

Was I cancelled? Did my esteem in the community fall at all? No, of course not. I didn't focus on explaining to anyone my use of 'dude!', and in fact I don't think I ever did justify it as a simple exclamation and not as actually misgendering. I didn't fret and worry about being accused of being a bigot. I went on with comforting and protecting my friend and advising her to the best of my ability.

If you misgender someone, correct yourself and move on. Someone, somewhere might think badly of you. That's going to happen anyway. The only thing that changes is who specifically that is.

 

[Belz...]

No, the most frustrating dynamic is that people get so offended on being corrected, politely or not, they start viewing the entire subject with undue suspicion all because someone who probably isn't even trans might call them or even just think of them as a bigot. It's exactly the same as being more worried about being called a racist than that other people are still being racist.

And on the other side of the discussion there are people who get so offended on being corrected, politely or not... oh, wait. That's BOTH sides of the discussion!

Furthermore, most trans gender people don't even correct others who misgender them the overwhelming majority of the time.

You got numbers to back up that claim, son?

 

[tyr_13]

I hadn't really thought about like that before. It's kind of a tough question, though.

At first glance, it seems obvious to me that it's the personal subjective sense of masculinity: "I think I'm a man, therefore I should be in the same category as everyone else who thinks they're a man."

But what is that category?

The category you mention above is literally gender identity. That's what trans men and cis men have in common. But I'm told that doesn't make sense and the term lacks utility even though it exactly answer the question and explains what it took you a sentence to express.

Gender identity.

The category is the way we're perceived by other people. "I think I'm a man, therefore I should be perceived as a man by other people." But that's definitely *not* something transmen have in common with cismen.

That is gender expression (or presentation) not matching gender identity. Another term that I'm told lacks utility despite it describing what you're talking about.

But that is something that trans men and cis men can have in common. In our culture basically no one is absolutely conforming to the proscribed gender expressions. I'm a cis man who has many conforming traits (physically strong, tall, wide jaw and shoulders, likes weapons, works out, drives motorcycle, blacksmiths and works wood), but also many non-gender conforming traits (sews, writes poetry, makes jewelry, has long hair, high standards of personal grooming, some clothing choices). It has been enough that many times I've been initially misgendered from behind. Yes, when I was working retail at six foot 235 lbs of power lifting muscle I routinely was called 'miss'. This is because there were elements of my gender expression that didn't match my gender identity even though my gender identity matches my genetic sex.

Gender identity is generally personally bound (exceedingly likely to have biological causes though). Gender expression is generally culturally bound. Genetic sex is generally genetically bound (with some non-binary elements rarely). Knowing the bounds, the source, of these phenomena make the choices of when something is someone's call if much easier (edited). Useful even.

That's pretty much the heart of the problem, I think: The category is based on the perceptions of others, but transmen want their perception of themselves to put them in the category.

I also think, now that you've got me thinking about it, that maybe it's the wrong question. Maybe the right question is, "when my self-perception and the perception of others is at odds, which one should prevail in society?"

And I think maybe the answer is, "it's complicated, it depends, and there's always going to be circumstances that nobody is happy with."

Yup, and thanks for being one of those 'mythical' people who has done an admirable job of understanding the reasoning and tensions at play even when I disagree with many of your conclusions of 'when gender identity is more important that gender expression or gender roles'.

 

[Belz...]

The category you mention above is literally gender identity. That's what trans men and cis men have in common.

Could you expand about what said identity is? From what I understand it's about how you identify yourself. But I'm a man and I've never even given a thought to said identity. It's objectively obvious that I'm a man for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with my perception.

Does that mean that some of us don't have a gender identity? Or did I get the definition wrong?

But I'm told that doesn't make sense and the term lacks utility even though it exactly answer the question and explains what it took you a sentence to express.

The issue is that the definitions we've gotten here and in other recent threads (including the non-binary thread) is that "gender" can mean anything from "biological sex" to "gender roles" to "gender identity", but that what it precisely means is never really pinned down, hence the criticism.

 

[theprestige]

Gender identity is generally personally bound (exceedingly likely to have biological causes though). Gender expression is generally culturally bound. Genetic sex is generally genetically bound (with some non-binary elements rarely). Knowing the bounds, the source, of these phenomena make the choices of when something is someone's call if much easier (edited). Useful even.

I see what you're saying and it definitely makes sense to me. However, it seems like there's substantial disagreement, from individual to individual, about the bounds, sources, and choices to be made about when something is someone's call.

So it seems useful in principle, but I have a lot of confusion and doubt about how to use it in practice. Can you give a practical example of how you use this framework to resolve a debate about whose call something should be?

Based on my answer to Damion's question, who do you think should make the call on admitting tranwswomen into women's sports?

 

[d4m10n]

I hadn't really thought about like that before. It's kind of a tough question, though.

At first glance, it seems obvious to me that it's the personal subjective sense of masculinity: "I think I'm a man, therefore I should be in the same category as everyone else who thinks they're a man."

But what is that category?

The category you mention above is literally gender identity. That's what trans men and cis men have in common.

If "gender identity" is taken to mean a personal subjective sense of one's own gender, then the thing that I have in common with Buck Angel^WP is that we both feel masculine rather than feminine, pretty much of the time. I suppose that works, though I didn't really feel masculine until after getting hit upside the head with androgens during puberty. Even then, the whole "Be a man!" thing felt more like a set of sex-specific social expectations as opposed to an internal drive for masculinity.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Gender identity" sounds an awful lot like all those stereotypes we put on what men and women are "supposed to do" that I thought we were trying to get rid of.

Watching people dance around the subject while trying to stay on the moral high ground with this but at the end of the day this is just gender stereotyping again, putting a bunch of rules on how men and women are supposed to act.

 

[TomB]

"Gender identity" sounds an awful lot like all those stereotypes we put on what men and women are "supposed to do" that I thought we were trying to get rid of.

Watching people dance around the subject while trying to stay on the moral high ground with this but at the end of the day this is just gender stereotyping again, putting a bunch of rules on how men and women are supposed to act.

I think the stereotypes have more to do with gender expression (and perception) than gender identity.

If others do not by default perceive your gender the way you perceive yourself and it causes you significant distress, you might manipulate your expression in an attempt to achieve the desired perception. In that case you would try to adapt appearances, behaviors and mannerisms that you believe send the clearest signal associated with the gender you wish to be perceived as.
If that's the case, then trans-women are likely to present with long hair, full make-up and wear dresses more often than cis-women do. I think cis women might feel more free to go out in jeans and a t-shirt, have a short haircut and wear little or no makeup. If a trans woman did that, they would just be perceived as male.

Similarly, trans men would be likely to gravitate towards male stereotypes.

It's about signals. Stereotypes are good for that. Cis-women (and men) may see the stereotypes as limiting and sexist, but I suspect that they provide utility to the trans community.

But this is just speculation. I don't personally know any trans people to discuss it with.