Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Elaedith]

(There seems to be further confusion between "gender" (identity) and "sex" (biological classification))

'Gender identity' cannot be synonymous with 'gender' if gender identity refers to one's sense of what gender one is.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that 'male' and 'female' refer to biological sex while 'man' and 'woman' refer to identity. The dictionary definition of woman and man is still (usually) 'adult human female/male'. If male and female refers to biological sex and biological sex is based on gametes, is binary, and immutable, then someone born male cannot become an adult human female (i.e. a woman). Somebody born male can genuinely identify as a woman, live in accordance with their chosen identity, and can be treated socially and legally as a woman for most purposes, but cannot literally be a woman.

Obviously some trans activists want to change the dictionary definition of 'man/woman' to something else (what is an interesting question) and I assume you agree with them. However, you have not made any coherent argument to support this. Your arguments seem to assume the truth of what you are arguing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm sorry, I can't help but LOL at you writing the above, and not apparently being able to see that the second of these two sentences flatly contradicts the first.....

Okay. Define "woman".

 

[Emily's Cat]

(There seems to be further confusion between "gender" (identity) and "sex" (biological classification))

Actually, I think there's conflation between gender and gender identity.

More specifically, there's conflation between "I identify as X" and "I am X".

 

[Boudicca90]

Actually, I think there's conflation between gender and gender identity.

More specifically, there's conflation between "I identify as X" and "I am X".

Gender identity IS your gender. You have a female gender identity, therefore you are female.

You don't think about your gender identity because it doesn't conflict with your biological sex and assigned gender like it does transgender people.

 

[Elaedith]

Okay. Define "woman".

I've yet to see anyone come up with an alternative definition of 'woman/man' not based on biological sex that is not self-referential 'a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman' and does not refer to gender stereotypes, and does not invalidate anyone who is a biological woman/man (ie. 'somebody who identifies as feminine/masculine' excludes females who do not feel they identify as feminine and males who do not identify as masculine).

 

[Boudicca90]

Okay then. Discrimination against women for thousands of years only exists in my own mind. Gotcha. Thanks for playing.

No, discrimination very much exists. But we are not the perpetrators of it, and are victims of it just as much as you, if not more so.

So your perception of us being a part of that discrimination is only in your own mind.

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, they contradict.

If we aren't women, then by affirming that we are women, we would be delusional or seen as having a false belief about ourselves. Which would be considered a mental health issue. Which is how we used to be treated.

Thankfully the standard is gender affirmation now.

At some point it's all semantics really. You say you are a woman and use your own definition of the word woman. I have my own definition as well. I see sex as something absolute and gender as a very nebulous concept that I would like to disappear in favour of a gender-blind world.

I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.

 

[Paul2]

Yes, exactly! And transgender people have a valid condition as well, and it requires acceptance. Almost everyone in this thread is on board with that. Transgender people DO feel that their gender is different from the one they were assigned at birth, and this feeling is completely genuine and real. This feeling should not be changed with medication or therapy. Transgender people should be allowed to live in line with their chosen gender. But that still does not make a transwoman a woman. Do you understand that?

I'm sorry, I can't help but LOL at you writing the above, and not apparently being able to see that the second of these two sentences flatly contradicts the first.....

This is my first post on this thread, so please be gentle.

Those highlighted sentences encapsulate the disagreement here, I think. The first sentence is about the practical considerations, and the second about identity. The disagreement revolves around whether identity is superior to practical considerations/compromise or not, given two definitions of identity, one biological/anatomical and the other social/mental.

One side privileges a social/mental identity so it is rightly superior to practice and should not be compromised. One's identity is inviolate and should not be compromised (unless, perhaps, absolutely necessary). If someone identifies as a woman, then they are a woman for all practical considerations.

The other side sees biological/anatomical identity as privileged over the social/mental type, and wants the issue adjudicated on practical grounds through compromise - trans folk want certain things but others want other things. Compromise is appropriate because biological or anatomical reality is so fundamental that it can't be compromised, so the only way to deal with those who see it differently is through political compromise, leaving no one side totally satisfied.

I've tried to frame this without favoring one side or another. I'm trying to describe the conflict, not resolve it (although a good description of the conflict should allow both sides to understand each other better, which should help a resolution ultimately).

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, discrimination very much exists. But we are not the perpetrators of it, and are victims of it just as much as you, if not more so.

So your perception of us being a part of that discrimination is only in your own mind.

So... transwomen have been discriminated against because of their sex? Legislation gets passed that revokes your bodily autonomy and makes your reproduction subject to approval from members of the opposite sex?

How much sexism have you had to deal with? How often have you been shut down and had your voice dismissed because of your sex? How often has it been implied that you're just innately not suited to executive functions? When was the last time your complaint was ignored because "it must be your time of the month"? How much of your life did you hear that "women always overreact, they're just so emotional" and had that used as a reason to dismiss your experience as being unimportant? How many of your concerns have been dismissed out of hand as "not that big a deal"? Has there been a long-running stereotype that transwomen, being natal males, are naturally ill-suited for math and don't have the minds for it? Which religions teach that you are literally a subset of a whole human, created from a male, in order to be subordinate to males?

You are subject to discrimination, but you are not subject to the same discrimination in the same way that females are. You're certainly not *more* subjected to sexism than females are.

And in this case, the fact that you repeatedly have insisted that sex is irrelevant, and isn't a big deal, and doesn't matter... and your complete unwillingness to consider and understand the perspective and inequities of the gender you claim to be, and instead insist that females should just bow out and let your issues be more important than theirs... Yes, you ARE enacting the same discrimination that has viewed females as less valuable and less important than males.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'll also reiterate, that you have repeatedly dismissed the issues that females face as being unimportant, and have insisted that sex is irrelevant, and have basically framed the entire issue of female rights and safety as 'not a big deal'.

You have no understanding at all of the issues and challenges and disparities of the gender you identify as.

Don't you feel like that might be something important to get a handle on? Don't you think that dismissing the concerns of females might possibly be part of why you meet resistance when you insist that you're "female in every way that matters"?

 

[Olmstead]

I'm sorry, I can't help but LOL at you writing the above, and not apparently being able to see that the second of these two sentences flatly contradicts the first.....

This makes me wonder: would you not allow a man to live as a woman if it turned out her desire was the result of a mental illness and she chose not to be healed?

 

[Earthborn]

Or, you know, take a more common sense approach like making sure my close colleagues know I'm epileptic, plugging my ears when the alarm goes off, and having a "stairs buddy" during a fire alarm.

Sure, whatever works for you.

What are your views on Affirmative Action?

I think for many fields of work it is more important the workers collectively form a good representation of society than it is to get the "absolute best" person for the job. Especially if what is "absolute best" isn't really definable, but what is definable is how well an organisation does its collective job in serving the public good and ensure public trust; for example civil service, policing, education, politics, social science... I think in those cases it is perfectly reasonable to set rough targets for how many workers are hired from a specific demographics, especially if the current demographic in the field is significantly different from the wider population.

For example you don't want a police force that mainly consists of white supremacists, just because they were the best in the shooting range. A police force should be an reflection of the population it polices, to ensure public trust.

Women, being half the population should be about 50% of the workers in such fields. The best way to achieve this is not through reverse discriminatory hiring practices, but by removing barriers women face in applying for certain jobs (such as a lack of parental leave) and by anonymising and randomising job applications so that the people who decide who to hire don't know the sex of the applicant unless absolutely necessary.

Sex-based sports leagues?

In many sports it is possible to determine who is the "absolute best" for the job. Finding that out is kind of the point. In some sports, especially the ones that rely mostly on raw strength, the "absolute best" are almost always going to be genetic males.
It seems odd to me have a special league for people who have a genetic disadvantage and not calling it "handicapped sport".

I think it is doable to desegregate sports. If we still want to leagues in which many women can compete, we can have weight classes or body shape classes or "testosterone level" classes or something, which means the only transwomen competing against other women are the ones with the least advantage over most other women.

Scholarships designated for women?

Depends on who gives out those scholarships. If a private entity gives out scholarships, it could have its own definitions on who is elligible and who isn't. If it is government grants, it needs to be on a non-discriminatory basis.

Honors set aside for accomplished women?

Depends on who gives out those honours. If a private entity does it, it could have its own definitions on who is elligible and who isn't. If it is government prizes, it needs to be on a non-discriminatory basis.

Sex-segregated prison wards?

If the prison system is sufficiently safe and not some third world level dump for humans, it should be entirely unnecessary to sex-segregate.

I also, however, think it's dangerous to put male-genitaled people in the female population.

I think it is dangerous to put people who have proven themselves dangerous together in a situation where they can be dangerous to each other. Male or female doesn't enter into the equation, the only important thing is whether or not you put dangerous people in a situation in which they can hurt each other. Don't do that, and the problem you are trying to solve through segregation disappears without it.

but I also have run across several who insist that they are just as much of a woman, end of story, no questions.

What they probably mean by that is: for all the intents and purposes in the situation discussed they should be treated just as much as a woman, end of story, no questions.

 

[LondonJohn]

'Gender identity' cannot be synonymous with 'gender' if gender identity refers to one's sense of what gender one is.

If I understand you correctly, you are arguing that 'male' and 'female' refer to biological sex while 'man' and 'woman' refer to identity. The dictionary definition of woman and man is still (usually) 'adult human female/male'. If male and female refers to biological sex and biological sex is based on gametes, is binary, and immutable, then someone born male cannot become an adult human female (i.e. a woman). Somebody born male can genuinely identify as a woman, live in accordance with their chosen identity, and can be treated socially and legally as a woman for most purposes, but cannot literally be a woman.

Obviously some trans activists want to change the dictionary definition of 'man/woman' to something else (what is an interesting question) and I assume you agree with them. However, you have not made any coherent argument to support this. Your arguments seem to assume the truth of what you are arguing.

Uhhhhh I think you're quibbling over different definitions to suit different contexts. Perhaps I'll offer you a counter example of "earth" meaning both soil "the planet which we inhabit" (with a capital letter), depending on the context.

I suppose that in a "perfect world of definitions" there would exist a seperate term altogether to refer to gender - with "female" and "woman" both staying exclusively as definitions of biological sex.

But I suspect you might be able immediately to spot the two major problems with this approach: 1) everyone - cis and transgender alike - would be confused by the introduction of a completely new set of two words to describe/define gender; and 2) in any case, cis women would fall into the category anyhow, and they would probably not understand (nor see the need) why they were now being asked to use a new word to describe their gender.


And because of this, a reasonable working solution has been found - for use when one is specifically discussing gender identity - in which "woman" refers to gender and "female" refers to sex (and likewise with men/male).

Hope that helps.

 

[LondonJohn]

Okay. Define "woman".

In this context (and in this context only), "woman" is defined as the gender with which a person identifies.


(Can't really - genuinely - believe that these sorts of things are still requiring explanation in a thread which has been discussing the subject for a long time now....)

 

[theprestige]

At some point it's all semantics really. You say you are a woman and use your own definition of the word woman. I have my own definition as well. I see sex as something absolute and gender as a very nebulous concept that I would like to disappear in favour of a gender-blind world.

I don't think we'll ever see a gender-blind world.

On the whole, the biological differences between the sexes are too apparent, and too significant, to avoid societies building up constructs around them.

On top of that, people like Boudicca need those social constructs in order for their own gender identity preferences to make sense.

 

[LondonJohn]

This makes me wonder: would you not allow a man to live as a woman if it turned out her desire was the result of a mental illness and she chose not to be healed?

No. I would not.

Provided, that is, that medical professionals determined that the person's wish to live identify* as a woman was the product of a mental disorder rather than an authentic condition in its own right, that is. And that's entirely irrestpective of whether the man in question wanted treatment or not, incidentally.


* Any man is entitled to "live" as a woman if he so chooses. We tend to call such men "transvestites" - the "vestite" part refers to clothing, but the term "transvestite" really encompasses everything to do with "presenting" as a woman. But that is very different from identifying as a woman.

(And definitions of terms are..... pretty important when having this nature of discussion/debate. It would be helpful if you made sure you were using correct and/or appropriate terminology)

 

[d4m10n]

Okay. Define "woman".

If anyone cannot face this challenge head-on, they should seriously consider opting out of this thread. Ms. Cat is cutting to the core of the issue here.

I would say that "woman" varies depending on context. The term doesn't take on the same scope in "women's clothing" at a dept. store as it does in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt^WP. The former is about gender presentation, the latter invokes the relatively immutable (at our current level of technology) reality of biology.

In this context (and in this context only), "woman" is defined as the gender with which a person identifies.

Okay now define gender without being viciously recursive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In this context (and in this context only), "woman" is defined as the gender with which a person identifies.


(Can't really - genuinely - believe that these sorts of things are still requiring explanation in a thread which has been discussing the subject for a long time now....)

It's a tautological definition, and as a result, is devoid of meaning.

 

[Olmstead]

In many sports it is possible to determine who is the "absolute best" for the job. Finding that out is kind of the point. In some sports, especially the ones that rely mostly on raw strength, the "absolute best" are almost always going to be genetic males.
It seems odd to me have a special league for people who have a genetic disadvantage and not calling it "handicapped sport".

I think it is doable to desegregate sports. If we still want to leagues in which many women can compete, we can have weight classes or body shape classes or "testosterone level" classes or something, which means the only transwomen competing against other women are the ones with the least advantage over most other women.

We want to find the "absolute best" biological woman as well (among other things). But please, let's completely disregard the hard work of women's athletes. They might as well not have bothered.

Honestly, why shouldn't transwomen compete with men?

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't think we'll ever see a gender-blind world.

On the whole, the biological differences between the sexes are too apparent, and too significant, to avoid societies building up constructs around them.

On top of that, people like Boudicca need those social constructs in order for their own gender identity preferences to make sense.

But to turn that equation around: people such as Boudicca90 wouldn't ever have authentic feelings that she identifies as a woman.... unless there existed differences in either a) the brain chemistry of men and women, and/or b) the sociological/cultural differences in the worlds inhabited by men and women.

In other words, people such as Boudicca90 inhabit an internal universe of consciousness in which they view themselves as products of either the brain chemistry of women and/or the sociological/cultural experience of women. And.... this is why people such as Boudicca90 identify as women.