Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Paul2]

Respectfully disagree.

One can say transgenderism exists, dysphoria is real and transitioning is the best (or only) treatment and still believe that after transitioning the resulting person is different than natal women.

Largely, this is a semantics issue as you recognize those differences as cis/trans under the larger group "women." Others might recognise this a women/trans-women (or women/women' or whatever) under the larger group "people who identify as women."

I think your disagreement makes sense (for the time being, before I hear from the other side) for those who have not transitioned surgically nor hormonally. There is a sense in which those folk are different from natal women that is not insignificant, even if their similarities to natal women - in terms of their internal sense of which gender they are - is very significant.

But for someone who has had the surgery and hormone treatment, what else is left to distinguish them from natal women other than their history? I don't see why their history should be significant, except in sports, where the history of going through puberty with male hormones produces changes relevant to some sports.

 

[caveman1917]

If you say "Transwomen aren't women" or that we aren't "real" women, it is denying transgenderism and gender dysphoria exists. If we aren't actually women, then this is all a delusion that you put up with to a certain point. And that's where most people here have their views, that we are women up to a certain point.

We are saying we are women, and deserve to be treated like all other women, not as men who think we are women.

Except that one side doesn't just say that "transwomen are not women" but are arguing it. In short, a woman is an adult human female, a human is of the female sex if SRY/androgen (or produces the large type of gamete), transwomen do not produce the large type of gamete nor the SRY/androgen thing, ergo transwomen are not female, ergo transwomen are not women.

The "transwomen are women" side, on the other hand, does just say it without arguing it. An argument would be of the form:

1. Defining the set of women.
2. Defining the set of transwomen.
3. Showing that the set of transwomen is a subset of the set of women.

Also, evaluating the assertion "transwomen are women" to false does not imply that you are delusional, but even if it did that's still not an argument in its favour. If someone were to go "but if you don't believe too that we are ruled by reptilian shapeshifters from outer space then you must think of me as delusional when I do" then the answer to that argument would go "yes then I suppose I'll think of you as having that specific delusion" and not "oh well that is definitely a sound argument to support the claim that we are ruled by reptilian shapeshifters from outer space, I shall now believe that too." Besides, why care whether some people think you're delusional? Most people are idiots anyway.

Personally I don't think you're delusional, a delusion requires irrational belief in a demonstrably wrong claim, and it appears more that you're trying to wiggle around with the definitions for "transwomen are women" trying (and failing) to reinterpret "woman" as gender rather than sex, than literally standing there pointing at yourself and going "this organism is of the female sex" (which would be a delusion). But after rejecting the sex-based definition of "woman" and failing to support a new definition of the term, you've just left the assertion "transwomen are women" hanging in mid-air, so it goes under the "not even wrong" category. And because a delusion requires the claim to be demonstrably wrong and a "not even wrong" claim not being demonstrably wrong, therefor it doesn't constitute a delusion.

 

[Paul2]

I was going to say that I think it comes down to the phrase "who'll have you" so I looked it up and found this.

http://donaldesimpson.blogspot.com/2020/06/wholl-have-you-freak-jk-rowling-and.html

I read none of those interpretations of what Rowling wrote as preferred. Is there some context that makes those interpretation preferred?

 

[Boudicca90]

See, this is the kind of stuff where you start losing me.

I think we both agree that an androgynous-looking cis-man pretending he's a woman in a lesbian bar to make out with a girl would be wrong.

But a transwoman not informing a girl beforehand that she is a transwoman would be perfectly acceptable?

I just can't understand this.

Yes, an androgynous cis man in your scenario would be very wrong.

A trans woman who has had GRS and has a vagina and is a woman in every way that matters? Not necessary, as there would be no issue there sexually. If I got with a trans man and he never told me he was assigned female at birth, it wouldn't bother me. As long as he has all the relevant equipment.

 

[Elagabalus]

Which links to "hatchet-job web pages" are you referring to?

You brought up autogynephilia in post 2665. I pointed out the blatant cause effect error in post 2668. I noted this problem independent of anyone's criticism, merely from reading material you had provided in this or another thread several months ago. I consider it blatantly obvious.

You brought it up again in post 3038.

I was curious if others had noticed the same problem that I consider blatant. So I did a search and Psychology WIKI was the first link I clicked on. Sure enough, the issue I noted was mentioned. So this time I posted that link. (3045) I have no clue as to the politics of Psychology WIKI and it's not my intent to cite them as a reliable source. It just illustrates that people other than myself see the cause/effect problem.

In post 3050 Elaedith posted three links addressed Blanchard's overall hypotheses. One was critical, but not dismissive. One is largely a criticism of the criticisms, I think. (So pro Blanchard..I haven't made it through that one yet.) The third describes research that might support Blanchard, though I think it needs more complete controls.

So where are all these links to hatchet job web sites you are referring to?

I did notice this from yesterday's link.

http://www.profkramer.com/assets/lawrence-2017-on-autogyn.pdf

page 3

Autogynephilic transsexuals tend to underreport autogynephilic arousal and overreport androphilic attraction, and these tendencies provide the most straightforward explanation of deviations from the predicted relationship between autogynephilia and sexual orientation...

So the Autogynephilic theory is still correct because - transsexuals, you just can't trust'em.

 

[Elagabalus]

I read none of those interpretations of what Rowling wrote as preferred. Is there some context that makes those interpretation preferred?

For me, "who'll have you" is very clearly a bitch slap. Potato-Potahto?

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, an androgynous cis man in your scenario would be very wrong.

A trans woman who has had GRS and has a vagina and is a woman in every way that matters? Not necessary, as there would be no issue there sexually. If I got with a trans man and he never told me he was assigned female at birth, it wouldn't bother me. As long as he has all the relevant equipment.

Leaving the transwomen vs. women debate aside for a moment, do you think someone can have a sexual orientation that excludes transgender people?

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you say "Transwomen aren't women" or that we aren't "real" women, it is denying transgenderism and gender dysphoria exists. If we aren't actually women, then this is all a delusion that you put up with to a certain point. And that's where most people here have their views, that we are women up to a certain point.

We are saying we are women, and deserve to be treated like all other women, not as men who think we are women.

Again if you can't describe what "being a woman" actually means what's the point and what's the problem?

The whole "If you don't agree with me as to how I conceptualize gender identity you're a bigot" is just defining us as bigot before the fact.

Basically we're at "You're a bigot because you won't agree I'm a woman using a definition of woman that I refuse to clarify because at this point demanding you accept something that's completely internal to me seems to be the point."

All for something that makes no difference. I'm not Rolfe. I'm not going to scream rape just because a penis and a vagina are in the same room at the same time. I'm just arguing that defining some "gender soul" of who the penises and vaginas are attached to is a colossus waste of time.

Again this is inherently different then things like homosexuality, race, or even religion. Those terms all means something, even if they are fuzzy edged at times. They aren't things you just declare true by fiat.

Sure someone could, theoretically, go "I demand you literally in your brain think of my as Jew even though I eat pork, think Jesus is the son of Christ, follow the New Testament and not the Talmud, and follow nothing but Christian rules/laws and not Jewish ones" and one could, if one really wanted to create drama where none needs to exist, that there completely internal context-less definition means something but the fact that nobody is doing that should tell us something.

The context and what we are being told we have to agree to least we be bigots is radically different from other examples of tolerance. This isn't like telling me I can't hate my neighbor for being Jewish. This is like telling me if I don't literally believe in God I'm a bigot toward religious people for denying their view of the world.

Telling someone simply that they are wrong can't be defined as bigotry in and off itself, especially when it doesn't manifest as literally any difference in how we treat each other (and no "Agreeing to see the world the way you do" is not included in "how we treat each other.")

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm also sure most transgender activists see trans-abled people and Otherkin as silly and I'm sure the difference is going to be explained to us any minute now.

 

[Boudicca90]

Respectfully disagree.

One can say transgenderism exists, dysphoria is real and transitioning is the best (or only) treatment and still believe that after transitioning the resulting person is different than natal women.

Largely, this is a semantics issue as you recognize those differences as cis/trans under the larger group "women." Others might recognise this a women/trans-women (or women/women' or whatever) under the larger group "people who identify as women."

Yes, we are somewhat different than cisgender women, but we are still women as much as they are, and that is my point. We deserve to be treated like women in every way unless there is some insurmountable logistical issue that prevents this, which is rare.

It is not just semantics, it is the heart of the matter.

 

[Elaedith]

For me, "who'll have you" is very clearly a bitch slap. Potato-Potahto?

I take it to mean 'sleep with anyone (who consents)', i.e. you can't commit rape.

 

[Boudicca90]

I read none of those interpretations of what Rowling wrote as preferred. Is there some context that makes those interpretation preferred?

Yeah, this all seems like a stretch to me. She clearly doesn't think much of us, but this seems like an overreaction.

 

[LondonJohn]

For me, "who'll have you" is very clearly a bitch slap. Potato-Potahto?

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah, this all seems like a stretch to me. She clearly doesn't think much of us, but this seems like an overreaction.

For me, it's very clear that the combination of context and previous form (on the part of Rowling) leads to the obvious overall intention of those words: Rowling is saying that transgender people are free to dress and act as they want, and sleep with anyone they want (provided the feeling is mutual)....

.....but.....

.... at the same time, she is denying the very authenticity of transgender identity.


In other words - she's saying - a person can do all those things (dress, acting, sex with whomever) entirely independent from any valid gender identity considerations. For example (she might say), a very camp male might choose to dress somewhat like a woman, act somewhat like a woman, and sleep with whatever men or women "would have him" - but none of those things require a belief in the authenticity of any transgender issues.

I think Rowling knew exactly what she was writing there, and exactly why she was writing it. I also realise that those who reflexively rally to Rowling's cause (most of whom, unsurprisingly, also have *certain* views on transgender issues....) can choose to paint those words as nothing more than a bland, generalised statement at worst - and even a tacit endorsement of transgenderism at best(!). And I wonder if that also occurred to Rowling as she wrote those words....

 

[LondonJohn]

You are really way behind on the context of this thread.

Most posters accept that there is legislation for people to change their gender and don't want to repeal it.

The issue is what is currently being lobbied for eg

In the UK the introduction of Self-ID, which would be a disaster for womens' rights.
Stonewall is campaigning against World Rugby's ban on transwomen playing women's rugby.

EDIT: and it becomes even clearer that you are underestimating the amount many key posters know about the issues.

*checks title of thread*

*checks whether title of thread bears any resemblance to the topic which this post condescendingly decides this thread is "actually" about*

*checks entire content of thread over the time leading up to my first contribution and beyond*

*checks right of anyone to refute or rejoin, concerning anything I've written*

*checks patronising, hectoring tone of above post*

*thanks above poster for their contribution, and waves goodbye*

 

[JoeMorgue]

In other words - she's saying - a person can do all those things (dress, acting, sex with whomever) entirely independent from any valid gender identity considerations.

Yes and I'm confused as to how this became a controversial opinion because when we're talking about applying those traditional roles to the sexes they were traditionally assigned to is something we all (I hope) agree is bad but now when we're applying to them the sexes they didn't traditionally apply to it becomes okay again and we're all being told to just nod and say that makes sense or get branded a bigot.

I (rightfully) can't tell a woman she has to dress and act a certain way in order to claim the "title" of woman, but I'm being told if a biological male dresses and acts a certain way that makes him a woman as if that's not the exact same thing.

Everyone in this discussion, me included, would be ******** kittens if someone came on this board and said that a.... lesbian with short hair that wore flannel wasn't "a real woman."

HOW IS THIS ANY DIFFERENT?

It's like you're trying to create gender roles that can only be applied ironically. As if when transgender use the gender roles against the grain its somehow inherently better, to say nothing of different, than their traditional usage.

 

[Elagabalus]

I take it to mean 'sleep with anyone (who consents)', i.e. you can't commit rape.

I was going to chalk it up to one of those American v. British English things but LondonJohn (who I'm assuming IS from London) thought the tone was condescending as well. YMMV? Bottom line, my go-to interpretation is in the negative because, for me, it implies that the person being addressed is incapable of finding a suitable partner on their own. Poor wording by J.K. Rowling?

 

[LondonJohn]

It's a bit rich to complain about someone "selecting" the Rowling quotes to consider when you refused to do so yourself.

The easy way past this would have been for you to quote Rowling's words and say what you think is objectionable about them.

I see you've tried to do this now, but really - is this the worst you can come up with?

"Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

If it is, then we're really through the looking glass here.

Ah a selective approach to the additional quotes I provided - how ironic!

Not to mention a selective approach to my post as a whole - extra irony with cheese!

And as I say, if you're either unwilling or unable to parse Rowlings words in order to understand their intended meaning, well a) the problem is with you and not me, and b) I'm sure Rowling is chuckling that her knowing selection of "just enough ambiguity" has paid off. You don't get to throw away a long-held (and very valuable) reputation as a beloved author without knowing how to whip up a little misdirection and plausible deniability (though it obviously wasn't quite enough to fool those who had their eyes and minds open to what was actually going on)

 

[LondonJohn]

I confess, I do not see the first three lines as a thinly-disguised attack on transgender identity. Can you explain how they are? I'm absolutely open to hearing that.

Ah, I just did, a couple of posts of mine back (before I'd seen your post here).

(It's not just my interpretation, by the way - by any means)

 

[Matthew Best]

It must be a potato/tomato thing because I read it like Elaedith.