Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Ziggurat]

....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?

You are again ignoring that this person self-declared that they were biologically male. That makes them a man, if one uses the definition of man as "adult human male". This is independent of what they're trying to look like.

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.

Well, no. People have strong desires to have sex with other people with specific sorts of genitals. That may be absurd, but it's very real, and it has a very large impact on people's lives. There are some secondary and tertiary interactions which get affected by this out of habit, but the primary interactions are not simply habit. There are deep biological mechanisms at work here, and they impact reality quite forcefully.

 

[TragicMonkey]

People have strong desires to have sex with other people with specific sorts of genitals. That may be absurd, but it's very real, and it has a very large impact on people's lives.

So if individual Pat has genitals of type [insert whichever type of genitals you prefer in a mate] then you will desire to have sex with Pat, no matter what sex Pat actually is. Given sufficient medical advancement in the field that means sex is irrelevant.

 

[The Atheist]

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

Lots of guys don't have them, and a number of trans women have them medically reduced by a shaving process.

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.

That would be me.

An amateur could be easily fooled by a trans woman who's undergone full surgical realignment. Modern surgery is pretty good, but physical constraints mean there are noticeable differences. Scars are pretty well hidden on good jobs.

Breasts that aren't surgically enhanced can look like other women, but they generally have a specific, unnatural shape if they're hormone-grown breasts only.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

Don't pretend to be stupid. People might believe it. Every single person in this thread, reading just that one comment, without referring to any other thing that I ever said, would be able to tell you, based solely on that one comment, that I would not say that a "mannish looking woman" was actually a man.

And you know that.

Who cares whether that bearded person in that photo is a woman or a man or Snork?

The teenaged girl changing into a swimsuit in the same locker room.

 

[Ziggurat]

Lots of guys don't have them, and a number of trans women have them medically reduced by a shaving process.

Which means a lack of one isn't a good indicator, which is actually distinct from whether the presence of one is a good indicator. Do people have them surgically implanted? I haven't heard of that before, but again, I'm no expert.

That would be me.

An amateur could be easily fooled by a trans woman who's undergone full surgical realignment. Modern surgery is pretty good, but physical constraints mean there are noticeable differences. Scars are pretty well hidden on good jobs.

So... you can fool the casual untrained eye, but probably not an expert examination?

Breasts that aren't surgically enhanced can look like other women, but they generally have a specific, unnatural shape if they're hormone-grown breasts only.

I was more referring to the fact that there are specific locations where the skin has to be cut in order to do a breast implant (around the areola if it's above the muscle, at the base of the breast if it's under, IIRC), and that leaves a distinctive scar even if it's faint.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Don't pretend to be stupid. People might believe it. Every single person in this thread, reading just that one comment, without referring to any other thing that I ever said, would be able to tell you, based solely on that one comment, that I would not say that a "mannish looking woman" was actually a man.

And you know that.

You're not a very good mind reader. You know that.

The teenaged girl changing into a swimsuit in the same locker room.

White knightery and the mythologizing (and fetishization?) of female innocence isn't really much of a basis for determining the importance of sex. I think the appeal to biology was on solider ground, at least there is quantifiable data possible there.

 

[Ziggurat]

So if individual Pat has genitals of type [insert whichever type of genitals you prefer in a mate] then you will desire to have sex with Pat, no matter what sex Pat actually is.

Still not reading for comprehension, I see. That doesn't follow from anything I said at all. Genital type is one of several components. Having the correct genital type does not suffice. But having the wrong type does exclude consideration, yes. That's a very common position among humans.

Given sufficient medical advancement in the field that means sex is irrelevant.

Given sufficient science fiction level advancement, sex itself may become alterable for humans. But we aren't there yet, or even close, so such speculation doesn't matter.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Still not reading for comprehension, I see. That doesn't follow from anything I said at all. Genital type is one of several components. Having the correct genital type does not suffice. But having the wrong type does exclude consideration, yes. That's a very common position among humans.



Given sufficient science fiction level advancement, sex itself may become alterable for humans. But we aren't there yet, or even close, so such speculation doesn't matter.

If sex becomes alterable, does it become meaningless? If so then sex only has meaning if it cannot be altered. And therefore whatever degree we can alter it diminishes its meaning to that same degree. As medical science advances daily, the meaning of sex diminishes daily. Which means, barring a sudden reversal in the advance of human knowledge and technological progress, mine will inevitably be the correct position at some point in the future, whether that's tomorrow or in a thousand years.

 

[Ziggurat]

If sex becomes alterable, does it become meaningless?

No, there is no reason to think that. There's reason to think that the meaning will change if sex becomes alterable, but not that it will go away.

 

[Meadmaker]

White knightery and the mythologizing (and fetishization?) of female innocence isn't really much of a basis for determining the importance of sex.

You are entitled to your opinion. I think sexuality is a pretty good basis for determining the importance of sex, and white knightery is admirable.

It isn't really "female innocence" that is significant here, though. It's youthful female sexuality. It seems, and I confess that this time I really am trying to "read minds" i.e. infer a position from a partial statement, that the "innocence" aspect must come from the oft repeated, but always wrong, error that the problem is that the young ladies would be scandalized, offended, or perhaps even frightened by the sight of a nude male. I'm not sure where that idea comes from, but people say it all the time, and that's what I think you are referring to.

In reality, the problem is not what they might see, but what might be seen, and by whom. In an anecdote I repeat often, because it illustrates the problem so well, the school board member assured some complaining young women who were requesting a transgirl not be allowed to use the girls' locker room that the transgirl would always wear a towel so that his male member would not be seen, to which the young woman replied, "Can she wear it over her eyes?"

Perhaps that wasn't your thought regarding "innocence". I may have mistakenly believed that your thought was the one shared by the school board member above, and expressed so frequently on these threads.

Ah well. It's all well worn territory. It comes back to things said on this thread and all of its predecessors. Either sex matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter for anyone, in which case no one ought to care if they are called a man or a woman. If it does, then we ought to define the terms. However, the situation we find ourselves in is that there are large numbers of people insisting that while no one really ought to care who gets called what, there is a small group of people for whom it is very important to be called one or the other, but the terms that are actually in use are undefined.

And just to recap my original contribution that reignited my participation in the thread, it was said that it was courteous to refer to people in the manner in which they wish to be referred. However, I have to question the courtesy of anyone who insists on being referred to as one sort of thing, when they acknowledge that they are not that sort of thing, nor will they even attempt to appear to be that sort of thing. That practice ends up making the reference meaningless.

 

[Meadmaker]

If sex becomes alterable, does it become meaningless? If so then sex only has meaning if it cannot be altered. And therefore whatever degree we can alter it diminishes its meaning to that same degree. As medical science advances daily, the meaning of sex diminishes daily. Which means, barring a sudden reversal in the advance of human knowledge and technological progress, mine will inevitably be the correct position at some point in the future, whether that's tomorrow or in a thousand years.

I think there is a point to what you are saying. I don't know what it would even mean to "truly" alter one's sex, but I can speculate.

However, whatever it means, it can't be done right now, nor in the foreseeable future, so for this world in which real people actually live, I think sex matters.


ETA: Indeed, I will go farther, by talking about something that comes up often. While no one in our actual world can "truly" change sex, there are people who have gone to great lengths to approximate it as best they can by surgical means. Everyone I have ever seen comment on this forum has said that they are willing to pretend for almost all purposes that the person is "really" of the adopted sex. i.e., If you are willing to chop off the boy bits and turn them around, I'm willing to call you a woman for almost every purpose. (Exceptions: some sports, and personal sexual contact. The last isn't applicable to me, personally, though. I'm fairly confident that all future sexual contact for me will be with a natural woman, and I think I even know her name.)

 

[zooterkin]

Feminine/masculine features aren't necessarily a guide, as Andre Pejic showed long before his transition.

Not seen them before, but my brain says they’re male.

 

[lionking]

You are entitled to your opinion. I think sexuality is a pretty good basis for determining the importance of sex, and white knightery is admirable.

It isn't really "female innocence" that is significant here, though. It's youthful female sexuality. It seems, and I confess that this time I really am trying to "read minds" i.e. infer a position from a partial statement, that the "innocence" aspect must come from the oft repeated, but always wrong, error that the problem is that the young ladies would be scandalized, offended, or perhaps even frightened by the sight of a nude male. I'm not sure where that idea comes from, but people say it all the time, and that's what I think you are referring to.

In reality, the problem is not what they might see, but what might be seen, and by whom. In an anecdote I repeat often, because it illustrates the problem so well, the school board member assured some complaining young women who were requesting a transgirl not be allowed to use the girls' locker room that the transgirl would always wear a towel so that his male member would not be seen, to which the young woman replied, "Can she wear it over her eyes?"

Perhaps that wasn't your thought regarding "innocence". I may have mistakenly believed that your thought was the one shared by the school board member above, and expressed so frequently on these threads.

Ah well. It's all well worn territory. It comes back to things said on this thread and all of its predecessors. Either sex matters, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter for anyone, in which case no one ought to care if they are called a man or a woman. If it does, then we ought to define the terms. However, the situation we find ourselves in is that there are large numbers of people insisting that while no one really ought to care who gets called what, there is a small group of people for whom it is very important to be called one or the other, but the terms that are actually in use are undefined.

And just to recap my original contribution that reignited my participation in the thread, it was said that it was courteous to refer to people in the manner in which they wish to be referred. However, I have to question the courtesy of anyone who insists on being referred to as one sort of thing, when they acknowledge that they are not that sort of thing, nor will they even attempt to appear to be that sort of thing. That practice ends up making the reference meaningless.

Well said. I can’t believe that some people in this thread, latterly Tragic Monkey, think access to change rooms is unimportant. It is one of the key issues.

 

[The Atheist]

Which means a lack of one isn't a good indicator, which is actually distinct from whether the presence of one is a good indicator. Do people have them surgically implanted? I haven't heard of that before, but again, I'm no expert.

No idea on that, but given the tissues involved, I imagine it would be quite difficult.

So... you can fool the casual untrained eye, but probably not an expert examination?

Not so much an expert - anyone who's had a reasonable amount of close-up experience with women's genitals would tell the difference. That counts quite a few guys out.

I was more referring to the fact that there are specific locations where the skin has to be cut in order to do a breast implant (around the areola if it's above the muscle, at the base of the breast if it's under, IIRC), and that leaves a distinctive scar even if it's faint.

Yeah, that's why I didn't mention implants - there's always a visible scar if you look for it, but lots of women get breast implants too, so it doesn't tell you anything.

 

[JihadJane]

White knightery and the mythologizing (and fetishization?) of female innocence isn't really much of a basis for determining the importance of sex. I think the appeal to biology was on solider ground, at least there is quantifiable data possible there.

This comment is alarmingly devoid of empathy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, that's why I didn't mention implants - there's always a visible scar if you look for it, but lots of women get breast implants too, so it doesn't tell you anything.

I didn't mean you could tell women from men, only augmented breasts from unaugmented breasts.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

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.

The individual from post #916 self-identifies as a mannish-looking (trans) woman, if I'm understanding their post in the Girls LOVE Travel Pride group correctly. I’m fairly confident that the individual in question is biologically male, as well.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The individual from post #916 self-identifies as a mannish-looking (trans) woman, if I'm understanding their post in the Girls LOVE Travel Pride group correctly. I’m fairly confident that the individual in question is biologically male, as well.

I'm not asking what the person identifies as, I was asking how could anyone else identify them using only visual information. Apparently the answer is that they can't, since so far the responses rely on information other than visual.

 

[d4m10n]

Does the text count as visual information?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Does the text count as visual information?

No. I'm asking if when you see a person in real life and have no other information aside from what you see how you determine what sex they are.


The answer is that you guess. Based on visual cues, so it's not a shot in the dark, but it's still a guess to some degree.