Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Emily's Cat]

Another strawman! You're hitting them out of the park tonight!!

What part of that is a strawman? I don't think you're applying that term correctly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because your sarcastic statement was quite obviously an attempt at a satirical instrument to attack what you saw as the trans-rights POV, when in fact it's nowhere near the trans-rights POV.

It didn't seem sarcastic to me at all. I think you're reading too much into that statement.

 

[LondonJohn]

It didn't seem sarcastic to me at all. I think you're reading too much into that statement.

You think that this:

"Well, I kind of picture a world where advanced body-modification is completely safe, convenient, and readily available and gender becomes little more than aesthetic. Not in my lifetime obviously."

...was not sarcastic on the part of its author? You think this is what the author sees as his utopian vision of the future?

 

[TomB]

That's not what the other person was saying AT ALL.

Hence the strawman.

I'm not sure how long you have been following this series of threads, but my recollection is that the original topic was referring specifically to sports.

There has been a great deal of debate about what advantages are inherent in male physical development, how those compare to the extremes of female development, and what criteria a trans person must meet before competing as a woman. From Rolfe, we have learned a great deal about SR genes and other developmental issues.

A few people have argued that the solution is that there should be no gendered or sex-segregated leagues as we are only interested in seeing the best. This is the argument that Earthborn put forward while acknowledging that many would be dominated by males.

Now, Earthborn did suggest testosterone based B-leagues and weight classes which would provide a minor league in which some women could compete. But in reality, this would just open up sports positions to a wider range of males.

Generally, I enjoy your posts, but in this thread you have made a couple of statements to the effect that "no one is saying that" when in fact what you are referring to has been an active subject of debate at various points in these threads. A good example of that is self ID with no need for a diagnosis or other hurdles. This has indeed been advocated for in these threads and by some prominent activists. It is a large part of what has posters like Emily up in arms.

These are not strawman arguments. They are not position you hold, but they are not fabricated.

Actually, in practical things, you and Emily seem to hold very similar positions. And Boudicca is not so far off from those. That's what makes this discussion both interesting and frustrating.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Still waiting on a definition of "woman" that is not tautological. I'd really like to see that some day.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You think that this:

"Well, I kind of picture a world where advanced body-modification is completely safe, convenient, and readily available and gender becomes little more than aesthetic. Not in my lifetime obviously."

...was not sarcastic on the part of its author? You think this is what the author sees as his utopian vision of the future?

Yes, I think he actually meant what he wrote. Or she.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Actually, in practical things, you and Emily seem to hold very similar positions. And Boudicca is not so far off from those. That's what makes this discussion both interesting and frustrating.

Indeed. I find it interesting that Boudicca's stated views and mine are actually very close together. In fact, her proposed testosterone level for transwomen to compete in women's sports is quite a bit lower than where I'm willing to start.

And yet... acknowledging that her sex is male is viewed as misgendering and subjects me to insulting epithets.

 

[LondonJohn]

Your edit of Elaedith's post seem dinsgenuous, in that you can only strawman it as a "gotcha" by ignoring the part that you excluded.

Please then tell me: in what way did any part of the post which I excluded make any different the part which I did include and to which I responded?

For reference, the part of the post which I snipped free in order to respond to it was this (with my bolding for emphasis):

"Gender dysphoria is listed as a diagnosis in the DSM5 which is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Therefore it is classified as a mental disorder as are all diagnoses in DSM regardless of whether the word 'disorder' appears in the name."


So, as I say, please point me to the discarded part(s) of Elaedith's post which conveyed any other meaning than that:

Elaedith was saying that because a) gender dysphoria is listed in DSM-5, therefore necessarily b) DSM-5 considers it a disorder (since, by Elaedith's reasoning, all diagnoses within DSM-5 are by definition disorders).


My response to that (faulty) claim was to point to a) the false logic that if DSM lists a diagnosis, then DSM considers it to be a disorder; and b) in fact DSM-5 specifically and explicitly removed gender dysphoria from its "disorders" category - which is analogous to the DSM saying that it no longer considers it to be a disorder (but that, since it is a condition which can only currently be diagnosed by mental health professionals, it keeps its place in DSM).

So how exactly was I being disingenous?

 

[LondonJohn]

Indeed. I find it interesting that Boudicca's stated views and mine are actually very close together. In fact, her proposed testosterone level for transwomen to compete in women's sports is quite a bit lower than where I'm willing to start.

And yet... acknowledging that her sex is male is viewed as misgendering and subjects me to insulting epithets.

I may have missed it, but where did Boudicca90 insult you for saying that her sex is male?

(Because the issue at hand is not about sex identity, but gender identity)

 

[LondonJohn]

Still waiting on a definition of "woman" that is not tautological. I'd really like to see that some day.

It's been provided several times within this very thread.

But, once more with gusto:

"Woman" is a lived identity; it is typically the lived identity of females, but with the proviso that a) some females have a lived identity of "man" (and we call these people trans men, and b) some males have a lived identity of "woman" (and we call these people trans women).

So "woman" is the lived identity of (most) females, plus those males who are trans women.


(I mean, I find these definitions and concepts extremely easy to understand, and extremely easy to accept. I recognise that others do not, though.)

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm not sure how long you have been following this series of threads, but my recollection is that the original topic was referring specifically to sports.

There has been a great deal of debate about what advantages are inherent in male physical development, how those compare to the extremes of female development, and what criteria a trans person must meet before competing as a woman. From Rolfe, we have learned a great deal about SR genes and other developmental issues.

A few people have argued that the solution is that there should be no gendered or sex-segregated leagues as we are only interested in seeing the best. This is the argument that Earthborn put forward while acknowledging that many would be dominated by males.

Now, Earthborn did suggest testosterone based B-leagues and weight classes which would provide a minor league in which some women could compete. But in reality, this would just open up sports positions to a wider range of males.

Generally, I enjoy your posts, but in this thread you have made a couple of statements to the effect that "no one is saying that" when in fact what you are referring to has been an active subject of debate at various points in these threads. A good example of that is self ID with no need for a diagnosis or other hurdles. This has indeed been advocated for in these threads and by some prominent activists. It is a large part of what has posters like Emily up in arms.

These are not strawman arguments. They are not position you hold, but they are not fabricated.

Actually, in practical things, you and Emily seem to hold very similar positions. And Boudicca is not so far off from those. That's what makes this discussion both interesting and frustrating.

A lot to unpack here. And I'm about to go to bed.

But a few initial observations:

1) Emily's Cat and I are actually pretty far apart on the fundamental issue of how trans women should be considered.

2) Clearly the to-and-fro which has been occurring over the past several pages is effectively confined to the posts which have been made over the past several pages. So when, for example, I use phrases such as "nobody is saying", I'm meaning "nobody who (over these past several pages) has been endorsing/arguing the position against which you have (over the past several pages), been arguing".

3) And as an expansion of (2), clearly the issues which have been discussed/debated over the past several pages or so of this thread.... have been the subject of this thread over the past several pages or so. And this necessarily therefore plays a major (and near-total) part in the way the debate is framed at this point in time.

4) With reference to all of the above, there has been nobody on the "side" of transgender issues - over the past several pages of the thread - who has been suggesting that it is somehow valid that (eg) a man can just decide to self-identify as a woman, and that this should necessarily/automatically confer upon him the identity of a woman. If others from further back in the thread have been making those claims, then a) I'm obv not aware of that, and b) in any case, in my view they're wrong.

 

[LondonJohn]

When it became apparent that it could only be diagnosed via gene analysis because it is in fact a genetic disorder then it was no longer appropriate for it to be in DSM, yes. Actually it used to be classified as a form of autism.

A condition which can only be diagnosed by mental health professionals rather than medical doctors is appropriately included in the broad category of mental disorders which is why it is still included in DSM.

ETA: I should add that dysphoria involves psychological distress (feelings of discomfort, unease and sometimes disgust with bodily features). The criteria are very similar to other psychological disorders involving distress. Transgender identity itself is not a disorder.

But nor is gender dysphoria. It's not a mental disorder. However, it's in DSM because it is a condition which is (only) capable of diagnosis by mental health professionals.

Yes, the symptoms of unresolved gender dysphoria may include distressing elements, as you say. But that's a very different, second-order problem.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't even know what you're upset about. Currently women's sports is seeing a growth in popularity and recognition. All those proposals would be bad for women's sports and turn it back into a sideshow to the men's category. Categories in sports are somewhat arbitrary, but the separation based on sex helps give legitemacy to the best women, and if you tear down the category you're actively hurting women's athletes.

Who's talking about "tearing down the categories" in sport? The original proposal to which you were responding actually suggested forming additional categories in women's sport, in order to take account of the likes of trans women, intersex competitors, or competitors who for some reason had abnormally high levels of certain hormones, and so on. So in fact, the proposal would level the playing field for those women who didn't fall into those other supplemental categories.

Personally, I don't favour the concept of creating these additional categories. I favour not permitting trans women to compete in high-level women's sports where physiology is a factor in success. But the other proposal is definitely a reasonable attempt to address the issue. You, however, appeared to treat it as some sort of "open doors" policy in which trans women (or maybe even any man who decides to self-identify as a woman - it's unclear as to what you believe) can come into women's sport and destroy the chances of any other woman. And it was not that at all.

 

[caveman1917]

It's been provided several times within this very thread.

No it hasn't.

So "woman" is the lived identity of (most) females, plus those males who are trans women.

Define "lived identity."

10$ says it'll go circular in at most 3 more steps.

 

[cullennz]

Still waiting on a definition of "woman" that is not tautological. I'd really like to see that some day.

According to the dictionary

Women - an adult female human being

Female - belonging or relating to women, or the sex that can give birth to young or produce eggs:

 

[Roboramma]

Let me re-present your statement above, with some substitutions*:

"IF it were framed as a wish and a desire, I might view it as a preference. But it isn't - it's presented as an asserted fact. David, for example, takes offence at being described as a heterosexual man who wishes to have sexual desires for other men. His response is that he IS A HOMOSEXUAL MAN full stop, no questions."

That rephrasing doesn't make sense. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to the opposite sex. If someone claimed of David that he was a heterosexual man who wishes to have sexual desires for other men, they'd simply be mistaken. Given the definitions of the words, he's not heterosexual, not because of does or does not want to have sexual desires for other men, but because he actually does have sexual desires for other men. It's not about his wishes. He fits the definition of homosexual but not the definition of heterosexual, so he's homosexual.

 

[Roboramma]

You think that this:

"Well, I kind of picture a world where advanced body-modification is completely safe, convenient, and readily available and gender becomes little more than aesthetic. Not in my lifetime obviously."

...was not sarcastic on the part of its author? You think this is what the author sees as his utopian vision of the future?

Seems that way to me. I'd be behind that vision too, for what it's worth.

 

[LondonJohn]

That rephrasing doesn't make sense. A homosexual is someone who is attracted to the same sex. A heterosexual is someone who is attracted to the opposite sex. If someone claimed of David that he was a heterosexual man who wishes to have sexual desires for other men, they'd simply be mistaken. Given the definitions of the words, he's not heterosexual, not because of does or does not want to have sexual desires for other men, but because he actually does have sexual desires for other men. It's not about his wishes. He fits the definition of homosexual but not the definition of heterosexual, so he's homosexual.

The contradiction (as perceived by reactionaries) is exactly the point.

Viz: a male who identifies as a woman.

 

[LondonJohn]

No it hasn't.



Define "lived identity."

10$ says it'll go circular in at most 3 more steps.

*sigh*

Can't you just go and look this stuff up? There are plenty of good (and reliable) sources. DSM-5, for example.

(And it sounds like you're also accusing DSM-5 of a circular argument - in which case you'd be advised to contact the group of the world's leading mental health professionals who used all their skills, knowledge and expertise to derive the definitions and diagnoses, and tell them they don't know what they're talking about....)

 

[Roboramma]

The contradiction (as perceived by reactionaries) is exactly the point.

Viz: a male who identifies as a woman.

I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing you playing with words.

When you say:
"David, for example, takes offence at being described as a heterosexual man who wishes to have sexual desires for other men."

Well, of course he does. He's not a heterosexual man. That's a simple fact, given the definition of heterosexual. Further, as I said earlier, his wish, or lack thereof, to have sexual desires for other men isn't even related to whether he's homosexual or heterosexual.

A homosexual man could have no wish to have sexual desires for other men, yet still have those desires, and thus be homosexual.
A heterosexual man could wish to have sexual desires for other men, but not have those desires, and furthermore have sexual desires for women, and thus be heterosexual. The wish here is not related to either person's sexuality.

So I'm not seeing where you think the analogy works.