Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[caveman1917]

And i'm not going to get bogged down in a debate about definitions, like so many people like to do here.

That's because "here" is a skeptics forum, particularly scientific skepticism. The opposite of that would be crackpots, and it just happens to be one of the defining features of crackpots that they fail or simply refuse to properly define their terms (even netting one a whole 10 points on the index under item 14). So sure, you're free to "not get bogged down in a debate about definitions" but don't expect that to gain you any points here...or rather it would, just not the kind of points you're probably expecting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A: I'm Italian!
B: Oh, I didn't realize you were from Italy!
A: I'm not. I' just Italian.
B: Ah, you have a lot of Italian family then?
A: No, none at all.
B: Huh, well did you grow up in a predominantly Italian neighborhood? Or maybe spend a lot of your formative years in Italy?
A: Nope.
B: I don't get it. How are you Italian?
A: Well, I identify as Italian, so I am Italian.
B: I don't understand. What does "Italian" mean to you, that you identify with it, despite having no Italian connections or background?
A: None of those things are relevant to being Italian. I'm just as Italian as someone born and bred in Italy.
B: How can that possibly be the case? What do you mean by "Italian"?
A: I'm not going to tell you. It's always a trap, and whenever I try to explain, I get challenged on it. So I'm just going to assert that I'm Italian, and if you disagree you're a bigot.
B: That doesn't even make sense. You're not Italian in any way that seems remotely reasonable, but what the hell, I'll call you Guido if you want me to.
A: Great! Now, since i'm Italian, I should get a cut of all the Mafia proceeds, and I should also qualify for these Italian American scholarships and grants.
B: Now hold on a second... I'm perfectly willing to treat you like you're Italian most of the time, but you aren't in fact, Italian in any meaningful sense of the word... and your claim of being Italian takes away scholarships and grants that are intended for people of Italian descent. That's not right, I don't think you should qualify for those funds.
A: You're a bigot and a racist and you just hate people who identify as Italians!
B:


**** Apologies to any Italians for the gross stereotypes used in this illustration

 

[theprestige]

Ah yes, autogynaephilia. Now there is a concept that needs a rigorous definition.

Seems like one of those excellent portmanteaus, modeled after classical Greek, where the word defines itself.

Unlike "woman" in the mouth of a trans activist, it seems pretty clear from context exactly what Rolfe means by it. How much rigor do you actually need here?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Ah yes, autogynaephilia. Now there is a concept that needs a rigorous definition.

Autogynaephilia

 

[Earthborn]

If that logic holds, then anyone who wants to identify as black can do so, because there's no meaningful concept of "blackness" that can be referred to. Thus, anything related to or commonly understood to refer to black people can be applied to all people. So scholarships for black kids are available to anyone who makes the claim of identifying as black.

Looking around the websites for black scholarships, nowhere do I see in the eligibility requirements any tests people have to undergo to prove they are "black enough". I think it is based on self-identification, as racial issues generally are.

 

[Boudicca90]

I de-lurked a couple of pages ago for a slightly longer explanation of what I find confusing and puzzling in this debate, and I’m de-lurking again to ask another question of posters like LondonJohn and Boudicca and anyone else who is behind the simple unqualified “trans women are women” position. For example LondonJohn stating earlier “You don't seem to realise that, for example, a trans woman is not a man.”
I just can’t get over the idea that not only do a significant proportion of trans women retain their biologically male genitalia, a significant proportion of them continue using their male genitalia to have penetrative sex with partners (including about 30% with female partners if i’m understanding Wikipedia correctly not counting those who are bisexual). How is a person born a man, with functioning male sex organs, and continuing to use their male sexual organs like a man, not a man? Does this fact not make you at all concede that in some significant way at least, those individuals are still male/men? To me, it’s about the least woman-like characteristics I can think of, frankly.

Because genitalia has nothing to do with gender.

A woman can have a penis and a man can have a vagina. It doesn't make them any less of the gender they are.

Gender is about internal gender identity and how you view yourself and how you interact with society. Things like chromosomes or genitals tell you very little about a person's actual gender.

 

[Rolfe]

Seems like one of those excellent portmanteaus, modeled after classical Greek, where the word defines itself.

Unlike "woman" in the mouth of a trans activist, it seems pretty clear from context exactly what Rolfe means by it. How much rigor do you actually need here?

Tne word was coined because the word that was previously used for the condition (automono-something, I forget) was thought to be a bit insensitive, possibly offensive. Guess what happened after that...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Looking around the websites for black scholarships, nowhere do I see in the eligibility requirements any tests people have to undergo to prove they are "black enough". I think it is based on self-identification, as racial issues generally are.

Sure. But if a lily-white ginger-haired fellow with a scottish accent shows up and claims to be black, how much you want to bet they don't get the scholarship?

 

[Boudicca90]

That's because "here" is a skeptics forum, particularly scientific skepticism. The opposite of that would be crackpots, and it just happens to be one of the defining features of crackpots that they fail or simply refuse to properly define their terms (even netting one a whole 10 points on the index under item 14). So sure, you're free to "not get bogged down in a debate about definitions" but don't expect that to gain you any points here...or rather it would, just not the kind of points you're probably expecting.

I don't expect to "win any points", i'm just not comfortable answering certain questions based on past experiences. And i'm not going to be pushed to do so.

Plenty of people think transpeople are "crackpots", including people in here who like to dismiss us by equating us with someone who believes they are Napoleon.

So you can think of us how you want, I owe nobody anything here.

 

[caveman1917]

Looking around the websites for black scholarships, nowhere do I see in the eligibility requirements any tests people have to undergo to prove they are "black enough". I think it is based on self-identification, as racial issues generally are.

No it's based on others-identification rather than self-identification, in particular identification by the people handing out the scholarships. If I, a white person, walked in and said "I self-identify as black" which of the following two things you think will happen?

1. "Of course sir, here's your scholarship."
2. "While you may identify as black, we identify you as white, so no scholarship for you."

If you think racial issues are based on how you identify yourself, rather than on how others identify you, then you don't have a clue about racial issues. Do you think the KKK asks the people they lynch about their self-identity first? Or do you think they decide who to lynch based on how they racially identify their victims?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because genitalia has nothing to do with gender.

A woman can have a penis and a man can have a vagina. It doesn't make them any less of the gender they are.

Gender is about internal gender identity and how you view yourself and how you interact with society. Things like chromosomes or genitals tell you very little about a person's actual gender.

No, genitalia has nothing to do with gender FOR YOU. Genitalia and bodies have a lot to do with gender for natal women. At least as most people understand gender.

So then, what does "gender" mean to you, such that it has nothing to do with sex?

 

[Rolfe]

And apparently it doesn't have anything to do with "presentation" either. It appears to be nothing but a marker on a passport or a driving licence, which is purely at the whim of the owner of that document.

Yes, it's appropriation. It's both meaningless and insulting all at once.

 

[Boudicca90]

No, genitalia has nothing to do with gender FOR YOU. Genitalia and bodies have a lot to do with gender for natal women. At least as most people understand gender.

So then, what does "gender" mean to you, such that it has nothing to do with sex?

Just what I said in my post, gender is how you view yourself and how you interact with society. It's ultimately internal, not external, but there are things like gender roles and expression that are more external manifestations of gender. I view myself as female, and I present myself and interact with the world as a female, therefore I am female.

You have an outdated view of gender that is increasingly unsupported by modern research.

And I have said this multiple times throughout this discussion, but apparently I have to keep repeating myself because nobody can accept my answer. I'm getting tired of it.

 

[theprestige]

Looking around the websites for black scholarships, nowhere do I see in the eligibility requirements any tests people have to undergo to prove they are "black enough". I think it is based on self-identification, as racial issues generally are.

I expect that will change, now that white people are noticing that being black in academia has certain advantages over being white.

What are some of the scholarship applications you've been looking at?

 

[lionking]

And apparently it doesn't have anything to do with "presentation" either. It appears to be nothing but a marker on a passport or a driving licence, which is purely at the whim of the owner of that document.

Yes, it's appropriation. It's both meaningless and insulting all at once.

Silly woman, what would you know........

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just what I said in my post, gender is how you view yourself and how you interact with society. It's ultimately internal, not external, but there are things like gender roles and expression that are more external manifestations of gender. I view myself as female, and I present myself and interact with the world as a female, therefore I am female.

You have an outdated view of gender that is increasingly unsupported by modern research.

Lol, "outdated view" is always such a nice trite dismissal. How about you provide some of the modern research that can explain it, since you seem unable or unwilling to do so?

And I have said this multiple times throughout this discussion, but apparently I have to keep repeating myself because nobody can accept my answer. I'm getting tired of it.

That would be because you're giving a non-answer! You're essentially saying "it's how I feel so there" and blowing raspberries at people!

"How I feel on the inside" isn't an answer. It has no meaning. It's a claim to something ephemeral, asserted with confidence. Pretty sure that the religious concepts of epiphany and grace are defined pretty much the exact same you you view gender - it's how you feel on the inside. But hey - at least they can explain to a degree what the significance of those internal manifestations are.

I'll add here, that on the inside, I feel like I'm about 2 inches taller than I actually am. I persistently and consistently view myself, perceive of myself, and expect myself to be taller than I am in reality. But that internal feeling is not reality. I can't say I'm actually 5'4", and all of the measuring sticks in the world are wrong. I can't insist that other people treat me as if I'm taller than I am, and that they drop all of their shelves to a lower level (while still calling them the same height) so that I can feel validated about my internal sense of myself. And I definitely can't insist that they let me on the ride that has a height requirement of 5"'3" on the basis of me "feeling" taller than that.

My brain is wrong about my height.

Objective reality exists outside of my head. And objective reality says that I'm 5'2" tall.

 

[theprestige]

Because genitalia has nothing to do with gender.

A woman can have a penis and a man can have a vagina. It doesn't make them any less of the gender they are.

Gender is about internal gender identity and how you view yourself and how you interact with society. Things like chromosomes or genitals tell you very little about a person's actual gender.

Gender is also about external gender identity and how society views you and how society interacts with you. And it turns out that things like chromosomes and genitals and how they are expressed as primary and secondary sexual characteristics has *a lot* to do with it.

If gender were just about how you interact with society, we wouldn't be having this debate. In fact, it's about how society interacts with you. And society says that biological sex ("genitalia") is a key factor in that interaction.

Hell, your idea of gender being how you interact with society doesn't work without society already having a set opinion about what that interaction is supposed to look like.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't expect to "win any points", i'm just not comfortable answering certain questions based on past experiences. And i'm not going to be pushed to do so.

You don't have to, just don't expect your claims to be taken seriously if you can't or won't define your terms. ETA: properly define them, as in non-circular and non-tautological.

Plenty of people think transpeople are "crackpots", including people in here who like to dismiss us by equating us with someone who believes they are Napoleon.

Yeah sure, it has to be anti-trans bigotry for skeptics to demand proper definitions of terms used in claims. You're being held to the same standard as everyone else. Indeed, you might have seen me grill LondonJohn over the same point just a couple of pages ago, and he definitely ain't transgender. Or for a more involved example, there's a thread in Religion and Philosophy called "Deeper than primes" that's basically pages and pages of a crackpot failing to properly define his terms and others taking him to task for it.

So you can think of us how you want, I owe nobody anything here.

And nobody here owes it to you to take your claims seriously. Again, same standard as everyone else. Making claims while refusing/unable to define the terms used -> claims get rejected. It is what it is, and there's no bigotry to it, no matter how much you want to insinuate that it is. Do you seriously think you're the first person to try to get lower standards by crying bigotry?

 

[theprestige]

Just what I said in my post, gender is how you view yourself and how you interact with society. It's ultimately internal, not external, but there are things like gender roles and expression that are more external manifestations of gender. I view myself as female, and I present myself and interact with the world as a female, therefore I am female.

Therefore you are female according to your own personal standards, which nobody else has to agree with. What do you say to someone who says, "I don't agree with your definition of female"? Do you tell them they're wrong? On what grounds?

 

[Paul2]

Just what I said in my post, gender is how you view yourself and how you interact with society. It's ultimately internal, not external, but there are things like gender roles and expression that are more external manifestations of gender. I view myself as female, and I present myself and interact with the world as a female, therefore I am female.

You have an outdated view of gender that is increasingly unsupported by modern research.

And I have said this multiple times throughout this discussion, but apparently I have to keep repeating myself because nobody can accept my answer. I'm getting tired of it.

Just what I said in my post, gender is how you view yourself and how you interact with society. It's ultimately internal, not external, but there are things like gender roles and expression that are more external manifestations of gender. I view myself as female, and I present myself and interact with the world as a female, therefore I am female.

You have an outdated view of gender that is increasingly unsupported by modern research.

And I have said this multiple times throughout this discussion, but apparently I have to keep repeating myself because nobody can accept my answer. I'm getting tired of it.

Maybe I can clarify both your ideas and the questions about it.

I say I'm a farmer. Everyone understands various characteristics of a farmer in general: you have to be planting plants, either in such quantity or over a period of time, maybe enough to make a living at it, etc.

I could also say I'm a dreamer (in the non-immigrant sense). We would understand in general - if perhaps a little vaguely - what that means, and this time it's not about external things, like plants would be for a farmer, but more internal, personal characteristics: I tend to go off in reveries, I am idealistic, optimistic, maybe creative, etc.

We then compare things about me in terms of being a farmer or a dreamer to our generalized sense of what farmers and dreamers are, and see if there is a match.

What would be the list of things about a woman that, if they matched with things about you personally, would make you - or anyone else, really - conclude you are a woman? Those might be externalities, as you mention above, but it's the internal things that are of more interest, I think.