Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[LondonJohn]

IIRC we had at least 3 biologists in this thread stating that 1) biological sex is real and 2) transwomen are of the male sex. I remember even giving links to dozens more biologists stating the same thing.

I don't know who would disagree with this statement though. So long as sex (male/female) is not being confused with or conflated with gender (man/woman). But anyhow, the real issue is not about biological sex: it's about the lived identity of gender.

And this relevant issue - transgender identity - sits squarely and exclusively within the domains of psychiatric medicine, psychology, and sociology (in other words, I disagree that this is an issue upon which the opinions of biologists carry much weight - especially in comparison with those disciplines that I've just mentioned).

I don't know how many psychiatry and psychology experts in particular disagree with statements of the variety "trans women are women". But I'm hypothesising that there cannot be many. My hypothesis is based upon DSM-5 and its reclassification of transgender identity.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

IIRC we had at least 3 biologists in this thread stating that 1) biological sex is real and 2) transwomen are of the male sex. I remember even giving links to dozens more biologists stating the same thing.

Cool. Not what i asked though

 

[LondonJohn]

God.... it's complicated but I think you can't make a case that women on women or women on male sexual violence is anywhere near as prevalent as man on woman.

I think the only takeaway from this point should always be not to rely on examples and anecdotes as evidence or data.

Not that I can win anyway, because even if I agree that we should look at whether there is a risk of sexual violence being perpetrated on women prisoners I just get abused. But nonetheless I personally would doubt the sincerity of a convicted rapist who got sentenced to 10 years in a ********* prison who then suddenly decided that they were transgender and only just realised.

Call me an old cynic.

Oh I wasn't in any way seeking to compare (numerically or proportionately) male-to-female rape with female-to-male rape or female-to-female rape.

What I was comparing against was the (apparently) sole documented example of a trans woman raping a cis woman.

And I didn't even mention male-to-male rape. Maybe - if Emily Cat's argument is extended - society should not have male-only hospital wards or male-only prisons.....

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Firstly, he wrote "a lot of all women", actually.

That doesn't equate to "all women". It equates to "a significant proportion of all those people who are women"

And for the purposes of his argument, it's not materially important whether he meant women in the strictly precise definition (wrt discussions around transgender identity) "those who identify as women" or in the more everyday definition "females". The former would include (a currently extremely small proportion of) trans women, while the latter would include (a currently extremely small proportion of) trans men. His statement is essentially the same either way.

No, I wrote all women and I meant all women. I'm tired of it. No matter the topic. Being continually talked down to by people who have co-opted entire populations to their argument without asking them. It stinks. EC no more speaks for all women than I speak for all right handed people. No matter how you define women.

 

[Sherkeu]

Firstly, he wrote "a lot of all women", actually.

That doesn't equate to "all women". It equates to "a significant proportion of all those people who are women"

Nope.

He said " You speak a lot for all women".
Not 'for a lot of women'.

You think it is a typo?

nm...he answered!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Oh I wasn't in any way seeking to compare (numerically or proportionately) male-to-female rape with female-to-male rape or female-to-female rape.

What I was comparing against was the (apparently) sole documented example of a trans woman raping a cis woman.

And I didn't even mention male-to-male rape. Maybe - if Emily Cat's argument is extended - society should not have male-only hospital wards or male-only prisons.....

I don't know what the solution for violent rapey toxic men is. They probably shouldn't be allowed near anyone. However its pretty clear that the issue of trans rights and violent rapey toxic mens rights are not one and the same

 

[LondonJohn]

No, I wrote all women and I meant all women. I'm tired of it. No matter the topic. Being continually talked down to by people who have co-opted entire populations to their argument without asking them. It stinks. EC no more speaks for all women than I speak for all right handed people. No matter how you define women.

That's entirely correct.

But in any case, it wouldn't neccesarily stand that even if Emily's Cat did speak for all (or even the majority of) women, this in and of itself should totally "win the argument" on issues such as this.

*caution - analogy incoming!*

1) Establish premise: if the majority of women (and the majority of men too, for that matter) disagree with certain transgender rights policies, this in itself should mean that those policies should not be enacted.

2) Show counterexample by way of analogy: in 1950s Alabama, the majority of white people (men and women) - indeed, very probably the majority of the population as a whole - disagreed with pretty much all black rights policies; this however did not serve as a determination that those policies should not have been enacted (and of course in time, there are very very few people who would disagree that those policies should have been enacted).

3) Apply the principle and precedent learned via the analogy to the initial premise. Stir vigorously, stand back, and leave to stand for 5 minutes.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know what the solution for violent rapey toxic men is. They probably shouldn't be allowed near anyone. However its pretty clear that the issue of trans rights and violent rapey toxic mens rights are not one and the same

Oh I agree. Not the point I was trying to make though. But no matter anyhow.

 

[caveman1917]

Will do, but (TBH) this isn't the sort of thing I like to discuss IRL, w/o rules and mods.

Well here's my experience with that, though it might be not be entirely representative given that it was in context of a social-anarchist-liberal setting at the very edge of the trans activist movement. So they wanted me to believe "transwomen are women" to be a true proposition, and after having gone through every fallacy they could muster, without ever producing a sound argument, they said they would "shame" me. At which point I couldn't help myself laughing for like 5 minutes before saying something to the effect of "Like I give a **** about your stupid shaming. If you want me to accept your claim then you have to provide a sound argument, it's that simple." Turns out I was 'cancelled' after at. It was the first time I was 'cancelled' - I got uncancelled and recancelled several times after that.

 

[TomB]

I don't know who would disagree with this statement though. So long as sex (male/female) is not being confused with or conflated with gender (man/woman). But anyhow, the real issue is not about biological sex: it's about the lived identity of gender.

I think a large part of it has to do with which things are or should be segregated by sex, which things are or should be segregated by gender, and which things don't need to be segregated at all.

And this relevant issue - transgender identity - sits squarely and exclusively within the domains of psychiatric medicine, psychology, and sociology (in other words, I disagree that this is an issue upon which the opinions of biologists carry much weight - especially in comparison with those disciplines that I've just mentioned).

I guess that depends on how much influence you think biology has on gender. Differences in brains, for example are biological issues, even if influenced by environment and experience. As are possibilities of genetic factors. when you start talking about genetics, you are talking about biology.

Psychology and biology are fields that interact quite a lot as some conditions are thought to be a result of brain chemistry.

I don't know how many psychiatry and psychology experts in particular disagree with statements of the variety "trans women are women". But I'm hypothesising that there cannot be many. My hypothesis is based upon DSM-5 and its reclassification of transgender identity.

I understand your point here. But I think we should remember that we are talking about terms that predate and were not created by psychology. (man, woman) In other words, they are not psychological terms and arguably are not the authority on how to define the words. They are in the common lexicon as well.

I'm going to use (OMG) and analogy here: Theory. Theory has a significantly different meaning in the biological lexicon than it does in the common. In the common, a theory is a guess. In the Biological (or scientific, really) it means something overwhelmingly supported by the available evidence. Both definitions are correct, but only when applied in context.

We have not reached a point where the term "woman" has been overwhelmingly redefined to be separate from sex in the common lexicon. Most people still use woman and female as synonyms. That has begun to shift, though it's noticeable mostly in discussions about trans-issues, but not to the point where you can say that the old definition is incorrect.

Currently, there are two valid definitions of woman in the common lexicon. The new definition is not really emanating from the psychological community. It's coming from the transgender rights movement. (I'm not sure where it originated, but it is moving into the common lexicon via the trans rights movement.)

The biggest communication problem in this thread is that both sides are holding on to their definition and refuse to speak in the other side's language.

 

[caveman1917]

Are trans-women women? If we are using a social definition of gender, yes.

Which definition would that be? The only attempt I can recall of producing a definition on that basis was tautological and failed to hold up to Robin's line of questioning. And by the mainstream sex-based definition of "women" the statement "transwomen are women" is false.

 

[caveman1917]

I don't know who would disagree with this statement though. So long as sex (male/female) is not being confused with or conflated with gender (man/woman). But anyhow, the real issue is not about biological sex: it's about the lived identity of gender.-

The terms for gender are masculine/feminine and not man/woman.

 

[Sherkeu]

I think a large part of it has to do with which things are or should be segregated by sex, which things are or should be segregated by gender, and which things don't need to be segregated at all.

The issue is that we know, scientifically, that there ARE differences in the sexes.
I don't care what a certain set of feminists might try to claim. It is bunk.

But the second you try to say that it makes sense that transgenders can do this and we are all happy with it, but not that because they are still biologically male, all hell breaks loose as !discrimination!, no matter if it makes sense or not.

I think, in the end, if some activist transgender women are not allowed to be stealth in ALL areas of life, then they will not be happy. It is the 100% acceptance as female that is the goal. It isn't really possible since you just cannot 'wish' something to be true that is not, but I think that is where we are.

 

[TomB]

Which definition would that be? The only attempt I can recall of producing a definition on that basis was tautological and failed to hold up to Robin's line of questioning. And by the mainstream sex-based definition of "women" the statement "transwomen are women" is false.

The terms for gender are masculine/feminine and not man/woman.

See here we go arguing about definitions instead of actual issues. (And for the record, I specified the context I was referring to in the sentence you quoted.)

I'll say it again: the term "woman" is a magic word for people in both camps. If we could get around it, perhaps we could actually talk. Because generally speaking, everyone seems to agree on how trans-women (and men) should be regarded in most contexts. If you throw out the word "woman" at least.

 

[d4m10n]

If you throw out the word "woman" at least.

Relevant reading.

 

[caveman1917]

See here we go arguing about definitions instead of actual issues. (And for the record, I specified the context I was referring to in the sentence you quoted.)

I'll say it again: the term "woman" is a magic word for people in both camps. If we could get around it, perhaps we could actually talk. Because generally speaking, everyone seems to agree on how trans-women (and men) should be regarded in most contexts. If you throw out the word "woman" at least.

You can't just make a claim and then, when challenged, complain that it's not what you want to talk about. If you don't want to discuss it then don't make the claim. Also, the term "woman" is a magic word for one camp only, the other camp has properly defined it in operational terms.

 

[caveman1917]

Relevant reading.

You might remember me suggesting waaaay back in the thread to use WOMAN-1 and WOMAN-2 as distinct terms to represent the different definitions in use to avoid equivocation.

 

[theprestige]

Your argument is that women only support Self-ID because they don't understand what it is? That sounds quite.... anti-women.

Would it sound too anti-AGG to argue that you don't understand the survey results?

It seems clear that the majority of women support self-ID as a general rule, but have reservations about it in exactly those contexts we're currently debating.

Those reservations are real. They're shared by the majority of women. And they don't go away just because you ignorantly (dishonestly?) claim that the majority of women support self-ID in the contexts we're debating.

 

[caveman1917]

And for the purposes of his argument, it's not materially important whether he meant women in the strictly precise definition (wrt discussions around transgender identity) "those who identify as women" or in the more everyday definition "females".

You first misspelled "circular" as "precise" and then "precise" as "everyday."

 

[cullennz]

Really don't see where the whole confusion over definition kicks in.

Woman - Someone whose sex is such they are born into the sex normally capable of producing a child

Trans women - Dude who thinks in his head he should have been a woman.