Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

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

You seem to have "overlooked" the responses that address this, and that describe how perceived sex is evaluated. I'm not sure how you did so, given that it was quite a lengthy post and would have taken you a fair moment to scroll past, but it seems that you did so anyway. Or at least, that's the generous interpretation that I'm choosing to go with.

I'll very kindly repeat it for you:

I think I've said this before, but it's probably worth saying again.

1) Sex is what your body is.
2) Gender is what other people perceive your sex to be
3) Gender identity is what you want other people to perceive your sex to be

None of these is chiseled in stone and immutable, and none of them are based on a single element.

Let's take a moment and talk about item 2 above: the perception of another person's sex.

Humans are very good pattern finders. Often we're too good and find patterns where none exist. But even with those false positives, we're surprisingly good at it. When it comes to sex (what a person's body is) we rarely get to see their genitalia, and outside of a few laboratories, none of us are looking at a person's chromosomes.

But sex has a lot (and I do mean a LOT) of non-genital indicators that almost everyone is very, very good at picking up on. The perception of sex includes some social constructs, such as:
- Style of dress
- Hair styles
- Make-up
- Jewelry

But those aren't the only elements that influence the perception of sex. Many of them are prompted by puberty such as:
- Ratio of shoulder breadth to hip width
- Facial hair
- Breasts
- Height
- Distribution of fat over the body

And some of them exist regardless of puberty:
- Shape and prominence of the brow ridge
- Size of feet and hands (with respect to age)
- Shape of chin and jaw line
- Tilt and shape of pelvic bone
- Attachment points for muscles and ligaments, particularly around the hip and shoulder regions

That's a lot of indicators. Each of them has a range of potential values, and most of them have different means and deviations for male versus female, even when there is overlap. Any given person is highly unlikely to fall at the mean of every one of those elements. But almost everyone is highly likely to fall within a standard deviation of the mean on all of them. It's very common for any given person to have one of those characteristics that visually falls within a couple of standard deviations of the mean for the opposite gender. It's very, very uncommon for any person to have all of those characteristics visually fall within a couple of standard deviations of the opposite gender's mean.

So any given male person might have a very soft jaw line and a chin that isn't very prominent. But that same male is highly unlikely to also be shorter, with hands that are close in size to a female, and small feet, and no notable adam's apple, and a female gait, and carry more of their fat deposits on their hips and thighs than on their stomach and chest, and have narrow shoulders with wide hips, and have breasts, and have no facial hair.

Most people are going to have somewhere around 90% or more of their non-social visual features fall into the same category as their sex. Some people might have more like 80% of them fall into the same category as their sex. And incredibly few people, almost negligibly few people, fall anywhere close to a 50%/50% split or are truly visually androgynous.

This is a long way of getting around to saying:
An ugly woman still looks mostly like a woman - beauty has only a small amount to do with the perception of sex.
Kaur is still visually a woman, even with a beard - her face shape, brow ridge, body shape - everything about her looks like a female.

If you take an average looking male, even a relatively small statured male, give them a clean shave, toss on some lipstick and eye shadow, and put them in a dress and heels... most people will have no problem at all identifying that person as highly likely to be a male.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

I left off the part where you put forward an obvious genetic fallacy^WP, because it didn't seem remotely on topic.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

As a woman, facing the challenges of being a woman, and having the lived experience of being a woman... I don't believe that the distinction between sexes, including their visually apparent signfiers, are absurd. The distinctions are quite a bit more than "habit" seeing as they affect my my health as well as my career progression, both of which I can assure, actually are impacts on reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That person looks like a man. The only indication we have that they don't believe themselves to be a man is their testimony. If I saw that person on the street with no other information at all, I would identify that bloke as a dude.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 know what? You're right. But I think that you're probably right in a direction you don't intend to be.

There is a fairly clear understanding of how to sort adults into categories of male and female based on visual information alone, without even seeing their genitalia. And humans are very, very good at it. Most of those signifiers are the result of sexual selection over a long period of time. Some of them are the result of natural selection in a sexually dimorphic species. But at the end of the day, nearly every human can, with over 99% accuracy, tell you whether a given person is a male or a female.

There are some people, however, who believe that they are different inside than their bodies indicate. There are some few people who believe that they are a man (and adult male) who had the misfortune of being born with a female body. There are some people who believe they are a woman (an adult female) born in a male body. Those people want the rest of us to treat them as if they are the sex that they believe themselves to be, in contradiction to every indicator that their bodies give us.

Appearance does matter, and appearance is almost always correct. But we're nice people and we want other people to be happy, so we indulge their wishes and try to treat them as whichever sex they believe themselves to be, even if that is in opposition to everything we understand of reality. And most of us will continue to cordially and genially treat them as they wish to be treated as long as they don't take advantage of our good natures.

 

[d4m10n]

If I saw that person on the street with no other information at all, I would identify that bloke as a dude.

If you saw that individual in the ladies room you'd be expected not to react unfavorably or even microaggressively. To behave otherwise makes you an oppresor.

 

[d4m10n]

Edited by Agatha: 

Removed quote of material sent to AAH

Excellent! Perhaps you'd be so kind as to say what you think

Edited by Agatha: 

removed personalisation

cis women ought to do now that the word has changed so as to include people who look exactly like cisgender men in certain fraught social settings.

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to remove personalisation

 

[theprestige]

Oh, okay. Now I believe that your aim in posting that picture was to foster an intellectual discussion on the linguistic evolution of the word "woman", rather than to rally the troops in yet another hate-session about how silly and unreasonable the people who aren't like you are.

Sarcasm aside, whatever damion's intent, an intellectual discussion can be had, starting from the premise of that image. If you desire intellectual discussion, why not have it?

 

[d4m10n]

It's certainly interesting to see someone who self-describes as a sceptic voicing the opinion that the origin of a piece of data is irrelevant to an assessment of its credibility, I'll give you that.

It doesn't actually need to be credible in order to discuss whether hypothetical individuals who look like beardy blokes should henceforth be allowed unchallenged in spaces formerly reserved for females.

ETA: Seems like an actual person from what I've seen on social media, FWIW.

 

[theprestige]

It doesn't actually need to be credible in order to discuss whether hypothetical individuals who look like beardy blokes should henceforth be allowed unchallenged in spaces formerly reserved for females.

Unfortunately, because you led by making fun of a probably-troll example, Squeegee has all the cover he needs to avoid any substantive intellectual discussion of the underlying issue.

My take is that it's not so much a troll post as it is a "do you not see that there's a pretty ridiculous conundrum that somebody is gonna have to address at some point?" post.

But like I said before, Poe's Law dictates that I at least keep open the possibility that she's 100% sincere.

And that's the possibility I'd like to see Squeegeee and arth address at some point.

 

[d4m10n]

Unfortunately, because you led by making fun of a probably-troll example, Squeegee has all the cover he needs to avoid any substantive intellectual discussion of the underlying issue.

Seems like giving hostage to fortune in the event Seani turns out to be 100% sincere.

 

[Suddenly]

Unfortunately, because you led by making fun of a probably-troll example, Squeegee has all the cover he needs to avoid any substantive intellectual discussion of the underlying issue.

My take is that it's not so much a troll post as it is a "do you not see that there's a pretty ridiculous conundrum that somebody is gonna have to address at some point?" post.

But like I said before, Poe's Law dictates that I at least keep open the possibility that she's 100% sincere.

And that's the possibility I'd like to see Squeegeee and arth address at some point.

The whole area of inquiry is irrelevant to the core principle.

The idea that how people identify is up to them isn't all that hard to accept as valid. It is I guess intellectually simpler to just drive people to suicide or madness over these issues. Which is what a lot of this comes down to, really.

That it will create some messy areas isn't relevant. 229 years in and in the US we are still arguing about how 1st amendment freedom of speech rights work because of gray areas, contradicting rights, valid state interests, and possibility of bad faith actors. That we are still working through the parameters isn't a valid argument against the principle.

 

[d4m10n]

The idea that how people identify is up to them isn't all that hard to accept as valid. It is I guess intellectually simpler to just drive people to suicide or madness over these issues. Which is what a lot of this comes down to, really.

If Seani and other similarly situated adult males (who've chosen not to physically transition) do not gain access to women's bathrooms/changing rooms/sports leagues, that puts them at risk of suicide?

 

[ZirconBlue]

Excellent! Perhaps you'd be so kind as to say what you think Emily's Cat (and other cis women) ought to do now that the word has changed so as to include people who look exactly like cisgender men in certain fraught social settings.

[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200807/32165f89e9b756752b84702efd8310bf.jpg[/qimg]

I am guessing you will say they are just going to have to take one for the team here, but it would be nice to see you engage the issue instead of deflecting to ad hom once again.

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

 

[d4m10n]

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

I've yet to see any examples of cis men feeling threatened by trans men in hitherto same-sex spaces. Happy to discuss whatever comes up, though.

 

[theprestige]

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

I think it's just simpler to talk in terms of one specific example, rather than trying to be all-inclusive at every turn.

Also, don't conflate the discussion of transsexuality generally, in terms of transwomen in particular, with the discussion of transwomen in women's sports, which is properly distinct from the issue of transmen in men's sports (and is far more of an issue).

 

[Suddenly]

... "queen of snark" being a gendered reference to monarchy and authoritarianism, it's actually quite progressive to refer to a male-presenting person by a female-gendered term. Who cares if someone calls you her instead of him? All genders are fine, right? So far from you being homophobic in the slur, TM is being transphobic in taking offense at all.

To claim misgendering someone is being progressive betrays either a lack of seriousness or knowledge.

 

[Meadmaker]

As is typical in these discussions, people like to pretend that transmen don't exist.

Two others have already replied, but I'll add my own spin to theirs.

The issues really are different. If I, as a guy, went to Planet Fitness, took off all of my clothes, and hopped in the shower, and realized that the person in the next shower stall was a woman....er....uh....a female.....I mean....to use the modern parlance the person was a vagina possessor....I wouldn't care much and I wouldn't feel threatened at all. And it really wouldn't matter if that vagina possessor had a beard or not.

Generally, women do not feel the same way if they are disrobing in the presence of a penis possessor.


So, we are really back to the chauvinism problem. A large number of women have an issue, and people are saying, "Who cares?" or "Yeah? But what about the men?"

ETA: And also, to echo another poster, the issues with sports are completely different for men and women.

ETA2: And although I said I "wouldn't care", what I meant was that I wouldn't feel threatened or offended or feel a need to call the manager or the police to have the vagina possessor removed. On the other hand, my overall reaction to the vagina possessor would very likely be influenced by her appearance.

 

[Meadmaker]

The whole area of inquiry is irrelevant to the core principle.

The idea that how people identify is up to them isn't all that hard to accept as valid. It is I guess intellectually simpler to just drive people to suicide or madness over these issues. Which is what a lot of this comes down to, really.

That it will create some messy areas isn't relevant. 229 years in and in the US we are still arguing about how 1st amendment freedom of speech rights work because of gray areas, contradicting rights, valid state interests, and possibility of bad faith actors. That we are still working through the parameters isn't a valid argument against the principle.

But the idea of how we identify them is up to us.

What's valid is whether those really muscular teenagers ought to be able to compete against the girls in the state track meet if they declare themselves eligible. And if we refuse and that makes them suicidal, then we really need to provide mental health care provisions, but we don't need to change the eligibility rules to accommodate them. I know we have done so, but I think it was a mistake, with or without the suicide.

Sorry if that seems insensitive, as it undoubtedly is insensitive, but there's a point where playing the suicide card just becomes some special "get out of logic free" pass.

In my not all that humble opinion, boys shouldn't be allowed to compete in the girls' competitions, even if they call themselves girls, and even if we are willing to go along with that for most other purposes.

 

[theprestige]

To claim misgendering someone is being progressive betrays either a lack of seriousness or knowledge.

I'm challenging you to rethink the orthodoxy and deconstruct its implications.

What's wrong with a man dressing or acting more "feminine"? Nothing. What's wrong with a woman asking to be treated the same as a man? Nothing.

Outside of gender dysphoria which is (a) rare and (b) actually calls for mindfulness of gender as part of the treatment, what is offensive about being referred to by the "other" gender pronouns? Is there something shameful about being a queen instead of a king? Is TM somehow less of a person when he gets her'd instead of him'd? Of course not. Or at least, it shouldn't be that way.

We should all strive to normalize the idea that it doesn't matter what your pronouns are. Because if we really believe that the genders are equal in value, it shouldn't matter. If my sense of "masculinity" is threatened by being called a queen instead of a king, that says more about my own queerphobia than it does about the person calling me a queen. Queen Victoria ruled an empire. Why should I feel diminished by the association?