Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[TragicMonkey]

Public pantsing!

Impractical. But does that mean you assign sex based upon sex organs? So a successful operation to create female-appearing genitals is all it takes to make someone a woman, or vice versa male-appearing genitals is all it takes to make someone a man? This seems to be a reverse from previous stated positions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Impractical. But does that mean you assign sex based upon sex organs? So a successful operation to create female-appearing genitals is all it takes to make someone a woman, or vice versa male-appearing genitals is all it takes to make someone a man? This seems to be a reverse from previous stated positions.

I kind of though the super flashy smiley was a good indication of humor. Perhaps I was wrong.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I kind of though the super flashy smiley was a good indication of humor. Perhaps I was wrong.

An excellent example of how people interpreting the same visual phenomena might end up with different conclusions. What we can know for certain is that the image appears. What it means depends on individual interpretation. If all of the audience interprets it the same way, then successful communication has occurred. If not, then this (and most other) threads.

 

[d4m10n]

You are the one claiming to be able to accurately judge between two categories, by appearance alone.

In one specific case, yes. Care to wager on that one?

ETA: Happy to define my terms if you agree to do the same.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

 

[The Atheist]

Public pantsing!

Caster Semenya!

Even the ants test doesn't work, although I can see the attraction of it, in Andrej Pejic's some cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

The argument presented by the post I was referring to was "look at this obvious guy claiming to be a woman LOL, I can totally see that he's not!" Which is very much summed up entirely as "if a person looks like a man, they should be treated as a man regardless of anything else outside their appearance".

Well, no. The person in question explicitly states that they are a trans woman. In other words, they are stating that they are biologically male. There is no uncertainty involved here.

Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do, if you rely on outside unspecified divine inspiration to determine someone's sex.

We don't need to judge this person's biology based on their appearance, let alone divine inspiration. It TOLD us its biology. We can use that as a guide.

 

[TragicMonkey]

In one specific case, yes.

Are you referring to the image above? Why do you believe that case can be judged by appearances but others cannot?

Care to wager on that one?

No, because I'm saying you're guessing, not that you're not good at guessing.

ETA: Happy to define my terms if you agree to do the same.

I'm not sold on the notion of objective reality itself, much less the categories you claim to be able to visually distinguish. If you cannot explain what those categories are I suggest you skip assigning people into them until you can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Thanks for telling us, everyone was super curious about that.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, no. The person in question explicitly states that they are a trans woman. In other words, they are stating that they are biologically male.

Surprising that I have to point this out in the third continuation of the topic of the thread, but your definition of "trans woman = male" is not universally agreed upon.

Perhaps you need to prove your assertion of that before you attempt to use it as a logical proof.

I'll wait.

There is no uncertainty involved here.

Not on your part, no, because you have decided you know the correct answer to the question of the thread. Perhaps you have also decided you are God Almighty, but others disagree with your authority to declare what is true in these matters.

We don't need to judge this person's biology based on their appearance, let alone divine inspiration. It TOLD us its biology. We can use that as a guide.

Why are you so hostile to that person? "It"? And deciding that whatever "it" says the opposite is what is being declared? That seems rather rude.

 

[theprestige]

Unless you're applying for the MDC in mind-reading you need to stop claiming you know what I'm thinking.



The argument presented by the post I was referring to was "look at this obvious guy claiming to be a woman LOL, I can totally see that he's not!"Which is very much summed up entirely as "if a person looks like a man, they should be treated as a man regardless of anything else outside their appearance".

How then could that make an exception for women who look mannish?

Two people are present, X and Y. X looks like a man. Y looks like a man. We can only determine how to treat them based on their appearance. And somehow you're telling me everyone "knows" that X is a man and should be treated as such and Y is a woman and should be treated as such?

Perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do, if you rely on outside unspecified divine inspiration to determine someone's sex.

Which post are you referring to? I traced this exchange back as far as this post:

What about women so ugly they look like men? Should we address them as male?

Which doesn't quote anything and doesn't seem to be related to the post immediately prior.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Which post are you referring to? I traced this exchange back as far as this post:



Which doesn't quote anything and doesn't seem to be related to the post immediately prior.

Post #916. Do you have images turned off? It's an image.

 

[Ziggurat]

Surprising that I have to point this out in the third continuation of the topic of the thread, but your definition of "trans woman = male" is not universally agreed upon.

Oh? Are there trans women who were born female? How does that work?

Not on your part, no, because you have decided you know the correct answer to the question of the thread.

Again, no. You're being either deliberately obtuse or you really don't understand anything. "Female" and "Woman" are not synonymous, and likewise "male" and "man" are not synonymous. Whatever argument you want to have over how the definition of "woman" should vary from simply "adult human female", if anyone seriously think there's a legitimate argument to be had over what "male" and "female" mean in regards to human biology, well, they're just a joke.

Why are you so hostile to that person? "It"?

Why are you taking my use of a gender-neutral pronoun as a sign of hostility? I have no idea what this person's preferred pronouns are. Neither do you.

And deciding that whatever "it" says the opposite is what is being declared? That seems rather rude.

I see you still insist on being confused about the distinction between male/female and man/woman. That's on you, not me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oh? Are there trans women who were born female? How does that work?

No idea, it's not a claim I'm making. I'm questioning the validity of your assertions, not claiming that a set of opposite assertions are necessarily true.

Again, no. You're being either deliberately obtuse or you really don't understand anything. "Female" and "Woman" are not synonymous, and likewise "male" and "man" are not synonymous. Whatever argument you want to have over how the definition of "woman" should vary from simply "adult human female", if anyone seriously think there's a legitimate argument to be had over what "male" and "female" mean in regards to human biology, well, they're just a joke.

Dear me, so we went from being unable to define just "man" and "woman" to adding two more terms, also not being defined! I guess that's progress...towards obfuscation.

Why are you taking my use of a gender-neutral pronoun as a sign of hostility? I have no idea what this person's preferred pronouns are. Neither do you.

Now who's being "obtuse"? Using a pronoun the language reserves for inanimate objects seems fairly hostile to me.

I see you still insist on being confused about the distinction between male/female and man/woman. That's on you, not me.

I see you still insist on insisting you get to decide who is a woman or not. I glean from your spluttered assertions that your theory is based upon birth circumstances somehow, so at least you get credit for inventing a principle instead of basing everything entirely upon appearance. But it's still an invented principle that you have yet to demonstrate is valid or should be accepted by others.

 

[Ziggurat]

No idea, it's not a claim I'm making. I'm questioning the validity of your assertions, not claiming that a set of opposite assertions are necessarily true.

Oh please. We're in "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" territory.

Dear me, so we went from being unable to define just "man" and "woman" to adding two more terms, also not being defined!

You tried to go there, not me. I think the definitions of "male" and "female" are perfectly clear. And given those clear definitions, you've got no argument against what I said. That's why you tried to pull a bait and switch when I referred to "male" and you tried to bring up confusion about "woman".

Now who's being "obtuse"? Using a pronoun the language reserves for inanimate objects seems fairly hostile to me.

Proof you are wrong by counter-example: tag, you're it.

I see you still insist on insisting you get to decide who is a woman or not.

Nothing in my post indicates anything about who is or is not a woman. I pointed out that the person being discussed is unambiguously male. As in the normal biological definition that people who don't need therapy aren't confused about.

Seriously go back and read my recent posts again. I said nothing about who is or isn't a woman. You have either assumed a position I never expressed or you have confused which posts belong to me and which belong to others. Pull your head out of your ass and start reading for comprehension.

I glean from your spluttered assertions that your theory is based upon birth circumstances somehow, so at least you get credit for inventing a principle instead of basing everything entirely upon appearance. But it's still an invented principle that you have yet to demonstrate is valid or should be accepted by others.

If the principle that your biological sex exists at birth is "invented", then it was not invented by me. And the biological sciences have demonstrated the validity of that principle in a fairly robust manner.

 

[theprestige]

Post #916. Do you have images turned off? It's an image.

LOL. It's image and text. I actually replied to it.

I quoted it though, so it would be clear what I was replying to. Do you have quotes turned off? : p

 

[TragicMonkey]

Oh please. We're in "that depends on what the definition of 'is' is" territory.

Are you suggesting the problem of who is a woman and who isn't is unsolvably complex? Okay, I can agree with that.

You tried to go there, not me. I think the definitions of "male" and "female" are perfectly clear.

So clear they cannot be stated, apparently.

And given those clear definitions, you've got no argument against what I said. That's why you tried to pull a bait and switch when I referred to "male" and you tried to bring up confusion about "woman".

You've lost track: I'm not the one stating anybody in particular is or isn't a man or a woman, or male or female. I'm asking the people who claim they can make such distinctions visually are basing that on, specifically how they distinguish between a mannish-looking woman and a mannish-looking man. I don't see how it can be done.

Proof you are wrong by counter-example: tag, you're it.

I don't think that particular "example" holds much water in the question of whether it's rude to refer to people as "it".

Nothing in my post indicates anything about who is or is not a woman. I pointed out that the person being discussed is unambiguously male. As in the normal biological definition that people who don't need therapy aren't confused about.

If you don't want to be perceived as hostile to trans people you shouldn't imply they "need therapy".

Seriously go back and read my recent posts again. I said nothing about who is or isn't a woman. You have either assumed a position I never expressed or you have confused which posts belong to me and which belong to others. Pull your head out of your ass and start reading for comprehension.

Increasing rudeness, vulgarity, and personal attack. I suspect those therapists you allude to might have some theories about why this topic excites you so.

If the principle that your biological sex exists at birth is "invented", then it was not invented by me.

Which adds nothing to the question of whether it's correct or not. For the record I wasn't crediting you with the invention of biological sexes.

And the biological sciences have demonstrated the validity of that principle in a fairly robust manner.

I'm sure these biological sciences (citation needed) back you up to the hilt on the question nobody's asked. How about the question that has been asked: how do you determine if a given individual is a man or a woman based upon their appearance alone? Can it be done? If so, how?

 

[TragicMonkey]

LOL. It's image and text. I actually replied to it.

I quoted it though, so it would be clear what I was replying to. Do you have quotes turned off? : p

The text was less interesting than the image and I thought it would save time to paraphrase the argument presented by the image and move on from there. The other people who've been talking to me had no difficulty in following that. I don't see that this exchange questioning how I got to what I said is more interesting than what I said. If you are interested you can pick up from here:

How can a mannish-looking woman be distinguished from a man by appearance alone?

If you aren't interested in that exchange then you needn't pursue it further. Unless you're really bored and want to, I guess, lecture me on how I post?

 

[Meadmaker]

The argument presented by the post I was referring to was "look at this obvious guy claiming to be a woman LOL, I can totally see that he's not!" Which is very much summed up entirely as "if a person looks like a man, they should be treated as a man regardless of anything else outside their appearance".
.

This is not the case.

It is not "I can see that he totally is not." It is that I can read, in his/her/splunge own words that he is not. That's what the caption is all about. (S)he says, quite explicitly, that he/she/splunge is a transwoman with no intention to transition his appearance. He knows he looks like a man. He admits, by acknowledging that he's a transwoman, that he is male bodied and intends to stay that way, and her picture confirms that his appearance is totally male. He looks male, and his words confirm that he is male.


And yes, you know full well that if I saw an "ugly" woman, which you clarified that you meant a woman who has a mannish appearance, that I would declare that she is a woman. Is she of the sex that can make babies? She's a woman.

I'll repeat something I said about a year ago in this thread.

If person A can have sexual intercourse with person B, such that person B becomes pregnant, that is a sufficient condition to declare that person A is a man, and person B is a woman.

(This is the cue for someone to jump in and demonstrate that they don't understand what "sufficient condition" means.)

For people who cannot, at this point in time impregnate or become pregnant, we can expand from there until almost every single person on the planet fits neatly into one of those two categories. We might have to add temporal references, and note that juveniles go by different terms, and that illness or injury affects fertility and all the other things people try to use as gotchas, but the word "ugly" need not be used in that categorization.

And.....you know that's what I think. You don't have to ask, and you don't have to pretend that you don't know.


That particular person, who would prefer to be called a woman, is just a particularly powerful demonstration of why the trans activist position is so meaningless. Most trans people actively go out of their way so that people who encounter them will believe that the trans person is someone of the preferred gender, and so one can look and say that they are associating something with "woman" and trying to emulate it. This person is not doing that. Ze is deliberately maintaining a masculine appearance, but assuring us that ze is a woman. Well what the heck does that even mean? If that person is a woman, then what does woman mean?

 

[Ziggurat]

Are you suggesting the problem of who is a woman and who isn't is unsolvably complex?

No. I'm saying that in this case, the problem of this person's biological sex is already solved, and contrary to your replies to other posters, we don't need to rely on this person's appearance, we can use their testimony.

You've lost track: I'm not the one stating anybody in particular is or isn't a man or a woman, or male or female.

I haven't lost track of anything. Yes, you didn't state anyone in particular is anything in particular. But you did take issue with posters who have stated that someone in particular is male, and contended that they cannot do so on the basis of appearance. The problem with this objection, though, is that we don't need to rely on appearance to make that conclusion in this particular case.

I don't think that particular "example" holds much water in the question of whether it's rude to refer to people as "it".

I admit to ambiguity in my reply, but the proof was that "it" was not reserved for inanimate objects.

If you don't want to be perceived as hostile to trans people you shouldn't imply they "need therapy".

What did I say about reading for comprehension? You aren't doing that.

The people I stated (not implied) need therapy are the people who are confused about the biological definitions of male and female. There is nothing about being trans which requires anyone to be confused about that, and I expect plenty of trans people would be offended by your insinuation that being trans leads to confusion on the topic.

Increasing rudeness, vulgarity, and personal attack.

Oh please. Don't pretend that you've been a model of decorum here. EDIT: removed unnecessary insult.

Which adds nothing to the question of whether it's correct or not.

If you are still uncertain about the biological basis of sex, I cannot help you. But the good news is there are plenty of educational resources available.

How about the question that has been asked: how do you determine if a given individual is a man or a woman based upon their appearance alone? Can it be done? If so, how?

That's not even a meaningful question if the definition of "man" and "woman" are up in the air. And it's obviously impossible if the definitions are purely self-referential, as some would prefer. If we use traditional definitions of "adult human male" and "adult human female", then appearance alone is sometimes insufficient to make a determination. But again, in this case we don't need to rely on appearance to make that determination.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This is not the case.

It is not "I can see that he totally is not." It is that I can read, in his/her/splunge own words that he is not. That's what the caption is all about. (S)he says, quite explicitly, that he/she/splunge is a transwoman with no intention to transition his appearance. He knows he looks like a man. He admits, by acknowledging that he's a transwoman, that he is male bodied and intends to stay that way, and her picture confirms that his appearance is totally male. He looks male, and his words confirm that he is male.

....you're not saying he's a man because he looks like a man, you're saying he's a man because he says he's not trying to look like a woman? How is that different?

And yes, you know full well that if I saw an "ugly" woman, which you clarified that you meant a woman who has a mannish appearance, that I would declare that she is a woman. Is she of the sex that can make babies? She's a woman.

How would you know if she's a woman if she looks like a man? Are you saying you wouldn't know until/unless she made babies? Otherwise it still sounds like you're going entirely off appearances. A sufficiently mannish-looking woman (and a sufficently womanish-looking man) would fool you entirely until/unless you made further investigations.

I'll repeat something I said about a year ago in this thread.

If person A can have sexual intercourse with person B, such that person B becomes pregnant, that is a sufficient condition to declare that person A is a man, and person B is a woman.

(This is the cue for someone to jump in and demonstrated that they don't understand what "sufficient condition" means.)

For people who cannot, at this point in time impregnate or become pregnant, we can expand from there until almost every single person on the planet fits neatly into one of those two categories. We might have to add temporal references, and note that juveniles go by different terms, and that illness or injury affects fertility and all the other things people try to use as gotchas, but the word "ugly" need not be used in that categorization.

All that sex is very interesting, but it suggests you think that you cannot determine if a given individual is a woman or not by appearance alone. Which was my question.

And.....you know that's what I think. You don't have to ask, and you don't have to pretend that you don't know.

Yeah, to be honest...I don't actually think about you that much, so I don't actually memorize what you've said before.

That particular person, who would prefer to be called a woman, is just a particularly powerful demonstration of why the trans activist position is so meaningless. Most trans people actively go out of their way so that people who encounter them will believe that the trans person is someone of the preferred gender, and so one can look and say that they are associating something with "woman" and trying to emulate it. This person is not doing that. Ze is deliberately maintaining a masculine appearance, but assuring us that ze is a woman. Well what the heck does that even mean? If that person is a woman, then what does woman mean?

Finally, the point I wanted to get to. It means nothing. These categories are made up. It doesn't matter who gets sorted into which category, and on what grounds. Not for social interaction, anyway. Who cares whether that bearded person in that photo is a woman or a man or Snork? What difference does it make to other people? Even if those categories were totally meaningless or the most important things in the cosmos it still doesn't make a significant difference in other people's lives, does it? Let's see, for me the sum total of possible issues that might arise from mistaking that person for a woman/man when they're the other is....I might be embarrassed by social awkwardness if I guess the wrong pronouns. Full stop. That's it. I thought about whether it would even matter if I guessed wrong when flirting with them but on second thought it wouldn't--if they're so mannish I'm attracted then finding out otherwise won't make a difference.

All I see for three threads now is people insisting that the distinction is super important, and trying to justify the conclusion they already reached. Some people don't want X to be a woman. Then they backfill in the reasoning behind it, and getting more and more elaborate excuses for all the ambiguous and edge cases.

The reason it all descends into absurdity it because the whole thing is fundamentally absurd. You can't escape it. You can't make sense of assigning people into subsets that themselves are more habit than reason, and bear little actual impact on reality.

 

[Ziggurat]

How can a mannish-looking woman be distinguished from a man by appearance alone?

Naked or clothed? A prominent adams apple is a fairly good indicator, though significant fat layers around the neck can obscure that.

Genitals are a significant indicator, if they appear naked. I am not intimately familiar with the appearance of genitals of those who have undergone sex reassignment surgery, so I cannot say for certain that they are distinguishable, but given how obvious facial plastic surgery often is, I would be quite surprised if something so significantly more radical did not leave telltale marks and scars. Breast enlargement surgery does. I'm not sufficiently interested to do my own research on the matter, so if anyone wants to claim expertise, I will defer to them.