Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[theprestige]

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.

Being treated as a sex object by men is a quintessential experience of the female condition. Now you're complaining about it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

It's still awfully vague.

a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth

So gender is a social construction... okay, I can accept that... based on labels of masculinity and femininity. So... what does "masculine" and "feminine" mean? What behaviors and attributes are being referred to?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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...)

You know, I usually find your posts to be well written. These in here have seemed quite snarky and condescending. It would be nice if you would engage in the discussion rather than putting people down.

 

[LondonJohn]

But for those who - I dunno - might have a tin-foil-helmet fear of opening up a government-entity website in case (I dunno) they have a fear of The Man taking control of their laptops....

....here's some of what the ONS paper (whose title is "What is the difference between sex and gender?"), last updated in Feb 2019 and still a live document - has to say about gender vs sex in a gender identity context:

The UK government defines sex as:

- referring to the biological aspects of an individual as determined by their anatomy, which is produced by their chromosomes, hormones and their interactions

- generally male or female

- something that is assigned at birth


The UK government defines gender as:

- a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself and so the gender category someone identifies with may not match the sex they were assigned at birth

- where an individual may see themselves as a man, a woman, as having no gender, or as having a non-binary gender – where people identify as somewhere on a spectrum between man and woman


As I said, maybe the UK Government doesn't know what it's talking about with respect to gender identity, either........

 

[zooterkin]

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 reassignment surgery doesn’t change one’s sex?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That's been the view held by the transgender people I've interacted with (which is admittedly not many). I found that person's view of femaleness as well as transgender issues to be depraved.

 

[theprestige]

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.

It does not say anything about me, actually. I'm referencing a common stereotype *and* a common experience of women in society. Not all men, etc., etc.

One of the rules of this forum is to not personalize the debate. Obviously we have to discuss your personal experience, since you've introduced it for discussion. But just because we're discussing your personal experience, that does not give you license to indulge in personal attacks on other members.

And yes, I agree that it's a misogynistic viewpoint. It's not one I subscribe to, but it is depressingly commonplace. Do you want to be seen as a woman in society or don't you?

 

[LondonJohn]

You know, I usually find your posts to be well written. These in here have seemed quite snarky and condescending. It would be nice if you would engage in the discussion rather than putting people down.

Oh - I'm imagining that it's because they're in response to snarky posts (which are accusing me of failing to do things which I've already done, which have patronised me by implying that I don't understand the meaning of a word like "tautology", and which have sarcastically accused me of not even reading posts to which I've been responding)...

.....which are asking me to repeat things that a) I've already said, and b) which are very easy to research (for anyone who's interested in learning about the subject matter). Maybe that's why. That's all

I'll try harder from now on though.


(I'm assuming you'll also be writing a similar post towards the other person involved, asking why he's been accusing other posters of running scared, then patronisingly suggesting that the other poster wouldn't know the meaning of the word "tautology" without looking it up, and so on. Won't you?)

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's hard to tell, but I believe theprestige is not expressing his own views, but is mocking the views of Long Cho.

It's not really landing though.

 

[caveman1917]

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...)

You're literate alright, it's just a case of illusory competence (a bit Dunning-Kruger like) as demonstrated yet again by you appealing to the authority of some UK government body on the definition of a biological term - sex - rather than, you know, a biology textbook or peer-reviewed papers in the biology literature.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender reassignment surgery doesn’t change one’s sex?

No? It changes the appearance of sex.

Honestly, can't tell if serious.

 

[theprestige]

That's been the view held by the transgender people I've interacted with (which is admittedly not many). I found that person's view of femaleness as well as transgender issues to be depraved.

I can't believe I never thought of this before: Could part of the problem of definitions be that men don't actually know what it means to be a woman?

 

[theprestige]

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

Then you should not be surprised, nor complain, that society in general doesn't necessarily feel like going along with your transition.

 

[LondonJohn]

Gender reassignment surgery doesn’t change one’s sex?

No, it doesn't. The clue is in the term "gender reassignment".

(That ONS article provides an excellent research resource).

 

[zooterkin]

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.

Ah, ok, you’re taking the TERF position.

 

[theprestige]

It's hard to tell, but I believe theprestige is not expressing his own views, but is mocking the views of Long Cho.

It's not really landing though.

Actually I think Long Cho has a bit of a point about transitioning being a canvas for others. No idea about the other stuff she says.

I am, however, mocking Boudicca's views on wanting to be treated like a woman by society, but not wanting to be treated the way society often treats women. It goes back to the whole problem of not having a coherent definition.

The truth is, Boudicca doesn't want to be treated like a woman. She doesn't want to be sexually objectified. She doesn't want to be paid 75 cents on the dollar. She doesn't want to be dismissed from consideration for positions of authority and power. She doesn't want to be thought of as the weaker sex, or the homemaker, or the babysitter... Or does she?

 

[Elaedith]

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

Most of us who are well informed are already aware that gender identity ideology has captured all the major institutions.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh - I'm imagining that it's because they're in response to snarky posts which are asking me to repeat things that a) I've already said, and b) which are very easy to research (for anyone who's interested in learning about the subject matter). That's all

I'll try harder from now on though.

FWIW, I was asking you to give a more detailed explanation, rather than a tautological one. Even the one in the link you provided is very vague - like I said, it defines gender as a social construct, which is fine, but it then says the construct is based on attributes that are labeled masculine and feminine.

Which is great, but it leaves us with the question of what masculine and feminine are in the first place. Especially in the context of discussions regarding transgender identity, where it's based on an internal perception of self that is not in alignment with one's sex.

When a female person says "I feel like a man" we can certainly infer that their gender identity is that of a man. But when that same female person wishes to wear dresses and makeup and to present themselves as female, and says that they have no desire or interest in trying to pass as male... then one has to wonder what exactly they think "man" means in the first place. What is it that they feel that makes them identify as a man? What is their view of masculinity? And if they want other people to treat them as a man, and allow them into private male spaces, it seems like there should be a reasonable description of "man" and "masculinity" that goes along with that, wouldn't you think?

Saying "I feel like a man" isn't, by itself, useful or meaningful.

It comes up in this discussion in particular, because the traditional dictionary definition of "woman" as an adult human female has been dismissed. Beyond that, definitions of woman as being a combination of biological factors and lived experience within society have also been rejected.

Even if none of us fits the mold perfectly, I think all of the natal women in this thread can describe common experiences of being a woman, things that we perceive as being directly relevant and pertinent elements of womanhood. But we've been told that our view of what "woman" means is irrelevant and incorrect.

Which does leave me at a bit of an impasse. If people born and raised as woman, who are female, are told that their understanding and description of what "womanhood" means is irrelevant... then what does it mean? A response of "it's how I feel on the inside" just is not a sufficient answer.

 

[LondonJohn]

You're literate alright, it's just a case of illusory competence (a bit Dunning-Kruger like) as demonstrated yet again by you appealing to the authority of some UK government body on the definition of a biological term - sex - rather than, you know, a biology textbook or peer-reviewed papers in the biology literature.

LOL you think that providing a link to the UK Government definitions qualifies as "appealing to authority"?! (Hint: that's not what "appealing to authority" means, even if you think that's what it means).

It's honestly neither here nor there to me (or, I'd imagine, to society) that you either cannot or will not learn the correct definitions of male/female and man/woman in a gender identity context. I certainly don't have the inclination, the will, or the desire to help to educate you any further. Reject the ONS article totally if you so wish, for whatever reasons you cook up.

I mean, I think it's more than a little *unusual* to choose to participate in a debate on gender identity issues when one either cannot or will not also choose to learn the correct definitions of terms - but maybe that's just me. See ya!

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can't believe I never thought of this before: Could part of the problem of definitions be that men don't actually know what it means to be a woman?

From my perspective, I think that's part of it, sure. I'm willing to admit to a lack of understanding, and a lack of experience on this. I'm willing to consider the notion that there is a concept of womanhood that transwomen experience that is meaningful and that which I and other women would recognize as being an element of our identity... but of which we are unaware.

I just really have a problem being told to just accept that the view of "woman" held by natal women is wrong and incomplete, and that there's some unexplained and vague notion of "womanhood" that is more true than our view, and which can only be experienced by transwomen.