Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[d4m10n]

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.

The entire field of binary classification^WP is based on probability theory. False positives and false negatives aren't uncommon even when dealing with strictly quantitative data.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The entire field of binary classification^WP is based on probability theory. False positives and false negatives aren't uncommon even when dealing with strictly quantitative data.

Okay. The point is that if one has to appear as a given sex to be that sex, then conversely appearing as a given sex makes one that sex. It's inconsistent to simultaneously hold these positions:

Person A is a man because they look like one
Person B is a woman even though they look like a man
Person C looks like a woman but is a man because of other reasons besides appearance

Either appearance matters or it doesn't, either there is a clear definition of what makes someone a man or a woman or there isn't, but there can't be a definition that works however you need it to at the moment when you want to sort a given person into a category but doesn't apply to other cases.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I would agree with this.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay. The point is that if one has to appear as a given sex to be that sex, then conversely appearing as a given sex makes one that sex. It's inconsistent to simultaneously hold these positions:

Person A is a man because they look like one
Person B is a woman even though they look like a man
Person C looks like a woman but is a man because of other reasons besides appearance

Either appearance matters or it doesn't, either there is a clear definition of what makes someone a man or a woman or there isn't, but there can't be a definition that works however you need it to at the moment when you want to sort a given person into a category but doesn't apply to other cases.

You lost me on this, though.

My point, which I think is shared by many, is that there is a biological reality that makes a person a man or a woman. It has to do with sperm and ova.

(At this point, people often start to play language games that are along the lines of: Since seven year olds don't produce ova, it's ok for Fred to use the girls' locker room. I left out a few steps in the middle, but the arguments aren't really worth discussing, and the conclusion is absurd.)

"Appearance", by which we normally mean the way a person looks during normal interaction, i.e. with their clothes on, can often be used to infer their relationship to sperm or ova production, but its an imperfect method. In other words, "appearance" is not a definitive characteristic of sex at all, but it can often be used to infer sex. It does sometimes lead to inaccurate assessments.

So your reference to "Person A is a man because they look like one." is not part of any argument I've seen anyone make. If you are attributing that to me or anyone else on this thread, it's a straw man argument.

Where it gets a little bit confusing is that there are certain cases where most of us are willing to pretend that a man is actually a woman. Our willingness to do so may be correlated with the steps that they have taken to appear to be of the sex which does not match their biological reality.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

FWIW, I tried to see if I could find out more about that particular person, but literally the only thing I can find is that one image in that one tweet. Since I assume due diligence has been done before offering it up as an example of Transgender Gone MAD!!?!?!!!, can I ask for a primary source?

 

[d4m10n]

(At this point, people often start to play language games that are along the lines of: Since seven year olds don't produce ova, it's ok for Fred to use the girls' locker room. I left out a few steps in the middle, but the arguments aren't really worth discussing, and the conclusion is absurd.)

Just a minor correction here. Females are born with all their gametes, they don't produce them as healthy post-pubescent males do.

 

[d4m10n]

Since I assume due diligence has been done before offering it up as an example of Transgender Gone MAD!!?!?!!!, can I ask for a primary source?

I linked to where the screencap came from in post #916.

(Adding more details would be a bit doxxish, IMO.)

 

[Darat]

FWIW, I tried to see if I could find out more about that particular person, but literally the only thing I can find is that one image in that one tweet. Since I assume due diligence has been done before offering it up as an example of Transgender Gone MAD!!?!?!!!, can I ask for a primary source?

Would be curious myself, the photo is badly cropped so wonder were it came from and in black and white, that's unusual for a selfie.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I linked to where the screencap came from in post #916.

...which is just a link to a random person's twitter feed, where she was apparently trying to cause trouble because she was drunk.

(Adding more details would be a bit doxxish, IMO.)

And yet still you posted it for people to mock, you noble soul, you.

 

[Matthew Best]

It seems to be this person:

https://www.facebook.com/needhamsean/

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It seems to be this person:

https://www.facebook.com/needhamsean/

"Page Not Found"

Searching for "Sean Needham" turns up an actor who looks nothing like the person in the picture.

 

[d4m10n]

And yet still you posted it for people to mock, you noble soul, you.

If you're not willing to countenance the possibility that I posted it as a (hypothetical?) example of the linguistic shift we've seen around the word "woman" in the last few decades, then there is nothing I can do to help you. Either engage on the issues in good faith, or don't, but don't expect me to pretend you are doing so when you flagrantly mischaracterize what has been posted.

 

[zooterkin]

"Page Not Found"

Searching for "Sean Needham" turns up an actor who looks nothing like the person in the picture.

Link works fine for me. The name seems to be Seani Needham.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Link works fine for me. The name seems to be Seani Needham.

Still not for me, and the google search remains the same.

 

[d4m10n]

Because nothing says "I'm trying to have an academic conversation about linguistic shifts" than posting the caption "Can we assume this is some sort of elaborate troll?"

I thought it very well might be an elaborate troll, as did Zig. Still unsure it's not, TBH.

The thing is, though, it doesn't actually matter to me whether Seani is playing a character (a la Godfrey Elfwick or Ali G) or being utterly serious. If some significant number of people have accepted that they are a woman, that in and of itself raises the question of what that term should henceforth be taken to mean. We've gone way past the "social kind" written about by Kathleen Stock.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think that if you have to cut off a quote in mid-sentence in order to avoid addressing the point, then that doesn't do a great deal for your credibility.

 

[theprestige]

Troll or not, I think it gets to the heart of what trans-activism is trying to do.

I think it's interesting that we've managed to discuss everything about that tweet except the real questions it raises.

My impression is that there are several "trans-allies" (for lack of a better term) participating in this thread. And my impression is that they have consistently avoided giving concrete answers to the following serious questions:

What exactly does it mean to self-identify as the opposite* gender?

What criteria should someone be reasonably expected to meet, in order for their self-identification to be recognized by others?

What accommodations should someone be reasonably expected to provide, based on that self-identification?

Squeegee, arth, et al: Set aside the obvious Poe's Law question about that tweet. Take the claim at face value. In that context, how would you answer the above questions? Your own answers, in your own words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why do you believe that case can be judged by appearances but others cannot?

I feel like you're doing some rhetorical tap-dancing here, some odd kind of "gotcha" trap-laying. But it's not really making sense to me. So let's start with something really really basic:

Do you, personally, feel that most people's sex can be accurately determined by appearances? Or is it the case that when you look at a random individual you genuinely have no idea whether that adult person is more likely to be a male or a female? Or somewhere in between? Can you please share your perspective on this so that we have common ground for a discussion?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

I swear this discussion is circling the drain of solipsism right now. The evidence of our senses can't be trusted, we just really can't tell what anything is. I mean, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck and lays eggs and floats in water, but you don't know - it might actually be a rhinoceros! Just because all evidence suggests that it is a duck doesn't mean it is! It could be something completely different, you just can't know for sure!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

No. It's really, really, really easy. Adult human males are called men. Adult human females are called women. In 99.99% of cases, we can tell who is a male (of the sex that creates spermatazoa) and who is a female (of the sex that produces ova and gestates young) by physical characteristics linked directly to sex. In a very, very few cases, it's ambiguous, generally due to a very rare developmental condition that impedes normal development during puberty, or which introduces mixed sex characteristics.

But because we're nice people and we care about the mental well-being of others, we'll call people by a pronoun that makes them feel good, even when it's patently obvious to everyone that the pronoun they want to be called by is not the pronoun associated with their sex.