Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Belz...]

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

This gender thing is getting more murky and complicated by the minute!

 

[JoeMorgue]

Cis-women (and men) may see the stereotypes as limiting and sexist, but I suspect that they provide utility to the trans community.

Oh I know. I figured that out 5 seconds into this discussion.

"What we want is a set of stereotypes about the genders/sexes that trans men and women but not cis men and women get to use" is where this argument landed right out the gate.

The last several dozen laps around the track (and all the same race we've had before this) have just been people trying to find a way to say that without saying that because that's A) impossible and B) problematic as hell if you think about at all.

The entire concept of "transgendered" is based open the existence of gender and sexual stereotypes reserved for use by only one subculture. I do not accept this as valid.

 

[Arcade22]

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.

There's a difference between a prescriptive and descriptive definition that you seem oblivious of.

There are general differences between male and females that cannot be explained away by blaming "patriarchal society structures". That is scientific fact that "gender critical" individuals deny. The most extreme and vocal of these literally think any differences are skin deep and that there are no inherent behavioral differences between the sexes.

There are feminine girly men/boys and there are manly masculine women/girls but on average females are obviously significantly more feminine than males are. I don't see it as a big step to go from identifying someone as a "girly guy" to calling them just a "girl" if that pleases them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's a difference between a prescriptive and descriptive definition that you seem oblivious of.

No. I'm not oblivious to the idea, I just reject it as absurd. There is no such thing as a meaningful difference that can only be applied 1st person. You can't have a 1st person quality and a 3rd person stereotype be the exact same thing.

If Person A says "I'm a biological man, but I identity (partially or completely) as a woman because of Factor X" and we accept that as valid then everyone who goes "Women need to have Factor X to be 'real women'" has to be accepted as 100% valid.

I do not believe that there are any factors in some... "essence" of maleness/femaleness that only transgender people get to use for themselves and are invalid in any other context.

Every difference shared quality between a cismale and a transmale is a valid difference between a cismale and a cisfemale. I'm just watching people trying to square a circle to pretend that isn't true.

 

[d4m10n]

The entire concept of "transgendered" is based open the existence of gender and sexual stereotypes reserved for use by only one subculture.

I don't think this is true. It is fairly easy to imagine a society in which women and men are expected to wear the same clothes, be equally assertive, be equally empathetic, etc. but in which some people nevertheless experience dysphoria wrt to the shape and form of their bodies (e.g. secondary sex characteristics).

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think this is true. It is fairly easy to imagine a society in which women and men are expected to wear the same clothes, be equally assertive, be equally empathetic, etc. but in which some people nevertheless experience dysphoria wrt to the shape and form of their bodies (e.g. secondary sex characteristics).

Well that puts us right back at "The difference makes no difference but it's super important that you acknowledged it" again which... is no better.

If the difference doesn't make a difference, it's doesn't make a difference.

If the difference makes a difference, it makes a difference.

One or the other.

 

[Arcade22]

If Person A says "I'm a biological man, but I identity (partially or completely) as a woman because of Factor X" and we accept that as valid then everyone who goes "Women need to have Factor X to be 'real women'" has to be accepted as 100% valid.

So how exactly does acknowledging a descriptive definition of woman mean we have to acknowledge a prescriptive definition of woman?

I don't follow you. In fact it makes no sense. Swedish law requires that those who seek to legally change their sex "act in a manner that conforms to their desired gender identity" yet at no point does the law proscribe what that entails. In other words, judges use a very broad descriptive definition of what that actually means.

 

[d4m10n]

If the difference doesn't make a difference, it's doesn't make a difference.

The difference between experiencing gender dysphoria^WP and not experiencing it seems fairly significant to me. If Buck Angel doesn't have that painful sense of dissonance these days, I'm happy for him.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[Cain]

Right, so...

I admit it, I can't be bothered to read and re-read through all of these threads. What is the consensus view? Are transwomen women? All of these threads should be accompanied with a poll (I don't care if they're split off).

 

[theprestige]

So how exactly does acknowledging a descriptive definition of woman mean we have to acknowledge a prescriptive definition of woman?

I don't follow you. In fact it makes no sense. Swedish law requires that those who seek to legally change their sex "act in a manner that conforms to their desired gender identity" yet at no point does the law proscribe what that entails. In other words, judges use a very broad descriptive definition of what that actually means.

It seems to me that when a description is legally endorsed, it effectively becomes a prescription in all future cases.

 

[Arcade22]

It seems to me that when a description is legally endorsed, it effectively becomes a prescription in all future cases.

Except when it does not. It's determined on a individual "case-by-case" basis so there's no precedent in sense that previous decisions affect future ones.

 

[theprestige]

Except when it does not. It's determined on a individual "case-by-case" basis so there's no precedent in sense that previous decisions affect future ones.

Enh. I mean, every court case is decided on a "case by case" basis. And yet they almost always include appeals to legal precedent in their arguments.

Or take the Miranda Warning, for example. The court issued a guideline for what information must be communicated. Naturally, that exact wording became the de facto standard. Police departments knew there would be no legal doubt or loophole, with that wording, since it was the wording used by the court itself in its decision. Their descriptive ruling became prescriptive simply by virtue of its proven legality.

Anyway, I bet that as courts decide specific questions about whether a certain expression satisfies the law, a de facto prescription will emerge: You don't have to do it this way, but this way is known to be legally sound, so your best option is to do it this way.

 

[d4m10n]

...I can't be bothered to read and re-read through all of these threads. What is the consensus view?

Trans women are women for all purposes except X, Y, Z but there's some debate on what those letters signify.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[JoeMorgue]

The difference between experiencing gender dysphoria^WP and not experiencing it seems fairly significant to me. If Buck Angel doesn't have that painful sense of dissonance these days, I'm happy for him.

And my point is you can't have gender dysphoria without differences in the genders.

Again I know "But it's complicated (in a way that will literally never be explained)." I heard everyone the first 500,000 times.

At least some of that "complexity" could have been explained in the last 5 threads of this same topic.

 

[d4m10n]

And my point is you can't have gender dysphoria without differences in the genders.

I think differences between the sexes would suffice, as I said above.

Again I know "But it's complicated (in a way that will literally never be explained)."

No, this part is relatively simple. If you are profoundly uneasy and dissatisfied with your body because it looks/feels like the body of a man or a woman, then you may be suffering from a mismatch between your body and your sense of self.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think differences between the sexes would suffice, as I said above/

I'm not going back down the gender/sex rabbit hole again until I get an answer beyond "Well it's complicated..." or "Well we're bringing back all the old man/woman stereotypes, we're just not calling it that but we're using them ironically" to that as well.

No, this part is relatively simple. If you are profoundly uneasy and dissatisfied with your body because it looks/feels like the body of a man or a woman, then you may be suffering from a mismatch between your body and your sense of self.

You could put any objective factor in there and it would be equally valid. I'm a tall person trapped in a short person's body, I'm an disabled person trapped in an abled person's body, I'm a unicorn trapped in a human's body.

None of those are this. Why?

 

[8enotto]

Physical features for biological male or female are correct, the mind says it doesn't fit.

But the body is healthy. That leaves a suggestion of where the problem lies. Why can't we go there?

 

[d4m10n]

You could put any objective factor in there and it would be equally valid.

Not according to the DSM, no.

Or did you mean "valid" in some sense other than what the experts have to tell us about common conditions which spring from human psychology?

None of those are this. Why?

Presumably because evolution adapted us to be one sex or the other, whereas we diverged from our common ancestor with unicorns quite a while back.

 

[Cain]

Trans women are women for all purposes except X, Y, Z but there's some debate on what those letters signify.

As in sports, restrooms...? By the way, thanks.

 

[tyr_13]

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?

Sure. Many medical conditions and procedures are biologically bound. Gender identity wouldn't override those practical considerations. It wouldn't be on an individual trans-man's gender identity to insist on a prostate examine and it be covered by health insurance for the same reason that no medically useless procedures need be covered by insurance. However, the same trans-man gets to pick his name and his pronouns for the same reason that you or I get to tell others we are men and use male pronouns. They are and have been generally bound to the person's self-identity. You're not going to know their sex anyway, so it cannot be bound there. Now, before you actually know them, you are likely either going to use 'they' or whatever you perceive their gender to be based on their gender presentation. If they don't have other input, it's your call. If they do, it's their call. If there are overriding medical reasons, then it is the call usually of the medical community. Gender expression, gender identity, biological sex.

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

Which sports, where, organized by who?

Yeah, another 'it's complicated' because it is. I don't expect the considerations of professional sports leagues to match high school sports, or to match pick up games on the corner, even for the 'same' sport. They don't have the same primary purposes, so what factors are the most important will change. Their organization change, and who gets to make the call change.

A professional sports league's primary purpose is entertainment. How it does this often takes into consideration its audience's sense of fair play, sportsmanship, competitiveness, tribal affiliation, etc (oh and advertiser input is almost as important as what the fans want). Barring legal considerations, the leagues have the call. It doesn't seem to be an existential crisis, and their considerations on what level to put the bounds at is beyond my pay grade. I just don't care enough about pro sportsball to keep looking into vague 'what about pro sports' arguments. Specific arguments may vary.

A college or high school sports league isn't supposed to have the primary goal of entertainment. It's supposed to teach values and offer physical challenges that build character. When I wrestled in high school, there wasn't a separate league for women because there were not enough women for it. They wrestled the men. It was the individual's call to wrestle or not, they didn't have to even make a choice on gender, and it worked fine. (Mostly, the cis woman gym coach in my school wanted to force any girl joining to take a physical test which was nonsense and in fact specifically barred by law in New York at the time.) Schools have state backing generally and who gets to choose there gets even more complicated even quicker. As a practical matter, trans gender athletes have been competing for a decade (except in Idaho) and none of the hypothetical concerns have come to pass.

Local sports generally don't have to let anyone play with them they don't want regardless of reason because they can, literally, pick up their ball and go home. The overwhelming games of sports played are informal and rely on mutual consent. They also tend to be co-ed. The point of trans gender people is moot there. It is always the call of the people involved and what they value. More and more are putting the value on inclusive and welcoming rather than the obsessive focus on validation through victory (which is always hilarious to me because they're all at best a big fish in small pond).

Most of the 'sports' I take part in are co-ed, and their primary goal is to build personal skills and meet other goals as set by individual participants. Rules change often to prevent 'training to the rules' and not the skills. Refusing an opponent based on gender identity, gender presentation, or biological sex would be laughable or disrespectful. But martial arts tend to be you competing against the you of yesterday, so only tangentially related to most 'sport'.

Regardless of whose call it is, it should be based on facts and real evidence and not unvalidated 'concerns'. WIAA have allowed trans gender athletes for ten years, the NCAA for nine. Trans women haven't been blowing away records or even taking top spots at a rate even equal to their participation. That's even without requiring two years of hormone treatment, which drastically reduces muscle building (skeletal structure is not effected). It hasn't effected the viability of cis women in those sports. Empiricism beats speculation. Many of the asserted harms don't make a ton of sense.