Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Tomboy]

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.

It's possible I don't understand what you mean by the highlighted, in which case I apologize, but the idea that being a woman is being defined even partially by gender roles and expression concerns me. As a biological woman, that's something I've struggled with and rallied against, mostly because for most of my life, I haven't fit the traditional gender roles and expression usually associated with or expected of a woman.

As my username indicates, I've always been a tomboy. I've always been more comfortable in clothes that are typically considered more masculine than feminine. I don't feel like myself in dresses and skirts. When I was a teen, I happily wore men and boys clothes and liked that I could pass for a boy. If nothing else, it meant that I wasn't talked down to when I went to the skateboard shop.

I can't speak to much else relevant to this thread. Shoot, I am a woman but darned if I know how I'd define it without deferring to biology or how society views me. Gender roles and expression, though, shouldn't be part of the definition, in my opinion, just because there's far too much variation even among biological women. I'm not less of a woman because I choose to wear pants and don't like to cook and don't plan to have a family and would rather play World of Warcraft than read romance novels.

I guess, my question is what are the "gender roles and expression" that are "external manifestations of gender" that you consider part of the definition of being a woman?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Transwoman Andrea Long Chu recently released a book called "Females". In this book, she describes "femaleness" as the urge to be the vessel for another’s desire.

In an interview with The New Republic, she says

In Females, the metaphor for desire shifts to self-abnegation or submission. My desire originates outside of me. It is external and I am the recipient.

...

It’s not just: “Oh my boyfriend wants me to wear this dress.” It’s: “I want to wear this dress because I want to perform my boyfriend’s desire for me to wear this dress.” So it’s more subtle.

...

Think about these Christian mommy bloggers who talk about genuinely serving their husbands. The whole point is that, when it actually happens, it will not be your husband making you do something, it will be you doing it because it’s already internalized what that is supposed to be. You become a vessel for your husband’s desires.

Her understanding of femaleness is

If you really want to get into it, the existential condition is the condition of being the subject. I am the thing that the world happens to phenomenologically. On the one hand, experience is all mine. I am lord and master of the world in that one particular sense, which is that everything happens to me. This is true of everyone who has ever lived. And at the same time, that is the lowest position possible in the ontological hierarchy—to be that, on which, in front of which, in the context of which, the world is happening.

NPR's review summarizes her view as

"Everyone is female," she writes in the appropriately titled Females, her first book, "and everyone hates it."

...

Of course, the "female" identity on which the book is based is admittedly less a biological condition than an existential one. Chu describes it as an experience "defined by self-negation" that includes "any psychic operation in which the self is sacrificed to make room for the desires of another." In other words, to be female — which, remember, we all are — is to not express your own desires, identity, personality but rather those of others, impressed upon you. And gender, it follows for Chu, is what people do to deal with the terrible fact of being female.

Holy cow. Not only should every female on the planet want this person's head on a platter, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that all transpeople on the planet should as well, becuase she says things like this:

Gender transition, no matter the direction, is always a process of becoming a canvas for someone else’s fantasy. You cannot be gorgeous without someone to be gorgeous for.

I need some serious head-asplodey smilies here, because I am out of words. How the hell did this get published, and why is it not being roundly derided as misogynistically debasing feces?

 

[Boudicca90]

It's possible I don't understand what you mean by the highlighted, in which case I apologize, but the idea that being a woman is being defined even partially by gender roles and expression concerns me. As a biological woman, that's something I've struggled with and rallied against, mostly because for most of my life, I haven't fit the traditional gender roles and expression usually associated with or expected of a woman.

As my username indicates, I've always been a tomboy. I've always been more comfortable in clothes that are typically considered more masculine than feminine. I don't feel like myself in dresses and skirts. When I was a teen, I happily wore men and boys clothes and liked that I could pass for a boy. If nothing else, it meant that I wasn't talked down to when I went to the skateboard shop.

I can't speak to much else relevant to this thread. Shoot, I am a woman but darned if I know how I'd define it without deferring to biology or how society views me. Gender roles and expression, though, shouldn't be part of the definition, in my opinion, just because there's far too much variation even among biological women. I'm not less of a woman because I choose to wear pants and don't like to cook and don't plan to have a family and would rather play World of Warcraft than read romance novels.

I guess, my question is what are the "gender roles and expression" that are "external manifestations of gender" that you consider part of the definition of being a woman?

For example, in your case your gender identity (and therefore gender) is female because you view yourself as a woman. The gender expression and roles you gravitate to are more masculine than other women, but it doesn't make you any less of a woman. Not everything has to line up perfectly. They are a part of gender, just like gender identity, but can be different as they aren't nearly as important to internal identity.

A good friend of mine is much like you and just sees herself as a more masculine woman than average. And she is quite more masculine than me, despite me having once presented as male.

I hope that clarifies my views somewhat, it confuses me sometimes too.

 

[TomB]

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.

I'm not sure, being male, put I suspect that human reproductive biology colors the way natal women interact with and perceive the world in ways that males don't suspect or comprehend.

 

[theprestige]

I need some serious head-asplodey smilies here, because I am out of words. How the hell did this get published, and why is it not being roundly derided as misogynistically debasing feces?

Well, this part, at least:

"Gender transition, no matter the direction, is always a process of becoming a canvas for someone else’s fantasy. You cannot be gorgeous without someone to be gorgeous for."

Seems pretty close to my understanding. Gender transition only makes sense in a society that imposes a distinct point of view about each gender. It pretty much has to be a process of becoming what other people are looking for.

"I want you to treat me as a woman."

"As a woman? What does that mean to you?"

"No. What does it mean to *you*? However *you* treat women, that's how I want you to treat me."

"... Okay. Wanna have sex in the back seat of a Volkswagen bug?"

 

[LondonJohn]

You were asked to provide a non-tautological definition of "woman" and refused to do so. ETA: and lol at your appeal to the authority of mental health professionals on what is or isn't tautological, they probably don't even know what a tautology is in the first place. Do you? Can you provide the definition of "tautology" in logic without looking it up?

"....you refused to".

Oh and no, I have no idea what tautology is - you see, I have a very low standard of education in the English language; frankly, even when I cheated and looked it up, I still couldn't figure out what it meant. Come to think of it, I'm that uneducated that I don't really even know what "means" means.


Jesus.

 

[Boudicca90]

Transwoman Andrea Long Chu recently released a book called "Females". In this book, she describes "femaleness" as the urge to be the vessel for another’s desire.

In an interview with The New Republic, she says


Her understanding of femaleness is


NPR's review summarizes her view as


Holy cow. Not only should every female on the planet want this person's head on a platter, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that all transpeople on the planet should as well, becuase she says things like this:



I need some serious head-asplodey smilies here, because I am out of words. How the hell did this get published, and why is it not being roundly derided as misogynistically debasing feces?

Wow, yeah she has issues. This is just straight up misogynistic junk and I don't agree with it one bit.

It really seems similar to those Christian wives who dedicate themselves to their husbands. Do whatever they tell you to and have no identity outside of him.

And especially coming from a trans woman! One of the problems we face is that we are just viewed as sexual objects by men. "Tranny chasers" who want us only for our bodies and have no consideration of us as people. I just dealt with a guy like that this week that was like that. I couldn't even have a real conversation with him because he kept bringing up sex. And now we have someone who advocates us just being objects for men!

Amazing...

 

[LondonJohn]

Except of course that the precise and exact mainstream definitions of "woman" and "female" have been provided multiple times already, you just simply don't like them so you reject them out of hand in favour of vague wishy-washy. So yes, that makes you a postmodernist.

OK. What are the "precise and exact mainstream definitions" of, say.... "dog".

Oh, wait, what's this? A "dog" can also, in one particular context, mean "a movable small post on a woodworking bench which allows for either a clamp to be positioned in different places or for the piece being worked to be positioned butted up against the dog in different places"???

Huh???? You mean "dog" doesn't ALWAYS mean a mammal with four legs??

Who'da thunk it?

 

[LondonJohn]

Which (non-circular) definition of "man" are you invoking here?

Bloody hell.

Is this really so difficult? Or are you, just perhaps, being wilfully obtuse?

(May I refer you to many previous post explaining - in the context of gender identity - the difference between man/woman and male/female)

 

[Emily's Cat]

"... Okay. Wanna have sex in the back seat of a Volkswagen bug someplace very uncomfortable?"

Fixed that reference...

 

[LondonJohn]

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.

Within a gender-identity context, there is a difference between the meaning of man/woman and the meaning of male/female.

So, for example, a trans woman* is a male, but is also a woman.

Not to be snappy, but this exact thing has been discussed at reasonable length within just the previous few pages of this thread (IIRC).


* And that's a properly assessed and diagnosed trans woman, just to be clear. Not just any man who suddenly decides he wants to be a woman.

 

[Crawtator]

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.

And...

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.

together do not seem to mesh. I do not think anyone here has posed a serious answer to how this should be treated and I think the fact that the two of you agree on so much but don't agree on this is a GOOD thing.

As someone else stated: the sides are not very far apart. It just appears as if we are talking past each other. I do not view trans women as women and I do not view trans men as men. This doesn't indicate a level of disrespect. It is the biological fact.

Now, if we take LondonJohn's perspective, which I'm happy to do, "women" could describe the gender and "female" the biological. But as we can see from Boudicca, that is not acceptable either. There is no rational discourse to be had and no true working definition of "male", "female", "man", or "woman" has been provided that isn't circular.

So where do we go from here?

 

[caveman1917]

"....you refused to".

Yes exactly, you said that "woman" is a "lived identity" and refused to define "lived identity."

Oh and no, I have no idea what tautology is - you see, I have a very low standard of education in the English language; frankly, even when I cheated and looked it up, I still couldn't figure out what it meant. Come to think of it, I'm that uneducated that I don't really even know what "means" means.

You were asked for the definition of "tautology" in logic. Have you ever tried actually reading other people's posts before responding? Just an idea...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wow, yeah she has issues. This is just straight up misogynistic junk and I don't agree with it one bit.

It really seems similar to those Christian wives who dedicate themselves to their husbands. Do whatever they tell you to and have no identity outside of him.

And especially coming from a trans woman! One of the problems we face is that we are just viewed as sexual objects by men. "Tranny chasers" who want us only for our bodies and have no consideration of us as people. I just dealt with a guy like that this week that was like that. I couldn't even have a real conversation with him because he kept bringing up sex. And now we have someone who advocates us just being objects for men!

Amazing...

It was appalling, and deeply disturbing. There was a fair bit described about her view of being trans, being largely based on "sissy porn". It really seems like she (?) views femininity through the lens of a 12 year old who got exposed to some really atrocious porn! Her comments on why people identify as trans were remarkable offensive and insulting. But there weren't direct quotes that would make sense.

What I find most disturbing is that there are several reviews and left-leaning news outlets that are lauding this trash as something wonderful and good for the trans movement. It's just... I don't know the right words for how incredibly horrifying that is.


ETA: I put the (?) in there, because I really, really have a hard time thinking of this viewpoint as something coming from a woman at all.

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I believe that several rather ill-educated contributors to this thread might benefit significantly from reading the attached paper from the UK's Office for National Statistics:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21


And if they still take issue, perhaps they'd be well advised to contact the ONS and tell it that it too doesn't know what it's talking about xxx

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes exactly, you said that "woman" is a "lived identity" and refused to define "lived identity."



You were asked for the definition of "tautology" in logic. Have you ever tried actually reading other people's posts before responding? Just an idea...

I don't know what the words "logic" or "responding" mean. I told you, I'm barely literate.

(PS: please read and digest the ONS article. It may help...)

 

[LondonJohn]

(Not that it doesn't say anything which I myself haven't been saying. But maybe you'd either prefer it or understand it better if you learned it from an official government entity. I dunno...)

 

[theprestige]

And especially coming from a trans woman! One of the problems we face is that we are just viewed as sexual objects by men. "Tranny chasers" who want us only for our bodies and have no consideration of us as people.

"I want you to treat me like a woman."

"Awesome! You want me to think of you purely in terms of what you can do for me, with little to no regard for your personhood?"

"That's not what I meant at all!"

 

[Boudicca90]

It was appalling, and deeply disturbing. There was a fair bit described about her view of being trans, being largely based on "sissy porn". It really seems like she (?) views femininity through the lens of a 12 year old who got exposed to some really atrocious porn! Her comments on why people identify as trans were remarkable offensive and insulting. But there weren't direct quotes that would make sense.

What I find most disturbing is that there are several reviews and left-leaning news outlets that are lauding this trash as something wonderful and good for the trans movement. It's just... I don't know the right words for how incredibly horrifying that is.


ETA: I put the (?) in there, because I really, really have a hard time thinking of this viewpoint as something coming from a woman at all.

I transitioned for myself, not for someone else and not for society in general.

I didn't do it to get or please a man, hell with all the female hormones, I don't have much interest in sex in general. I feel like I actually can have sex now when I couldn't before, now that my body is in line with my mind. But that's not the same as doing it FOR a guy. I mostly just want companionship.

 

[Boudicca90]

"I want you to treat me like a woman."

"Awesome! You want me to think of you purely in terms of what you can do for me, with little to no regard for your personhood?"

"That's not what I meant at all!"

That certainly says a lot about how YOU treat and view women. And seems much like the view of the trans woman Emily brought up. Misogynistic.