Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[d4m10n]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_analogy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasoning-analogy/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123382/

Nope. It's still "arguments by analogy always fail". Did yours succeed? No. QED.

Claiming that an argument from analogy is valid is like claiming that an argument from divine inspiration is valid. See what I did there?

I started a thread exclusively about arguments from analogy in case anyone is interested:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13228587#post13228587

 

[MisAndreG]

And this illustrates why I'm done with you people.

You like to mock and make fun of us like this because you consider us delusional, like the other bigot who keeps trying to say we are like a person who thinks they are Napoleon. The fact that you can't see how insulting and demeaning that is to us says it all. Transphobia seems to be the last bastion of acceptable hate and discrimination anyway (even though you are just stealing your arguments from the homophobes.)

Have fun trying to prevent us from gaining equal rights, since you are rightfully losing that battle. You better get used to us around you in single-sex spaces, because we aren't leaving and you can't make us.

meh. Women have been dealing with entitled men colonizing Women’s spaces for centuries. y’all lost that battle before and you’ll lose this one too, eventually.

(how insane is it a dude who claims he’s an actual women thinks delusional doesn’t apply to him? moreover the mask always slips off these entitled misogynistic tras. I mean, “I’m gonna do whatever I want and there is nothing you little ladies can do about it” is one hell of a statement.”)

 

[MisAndreG]

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.

Trans woman - a person whose life is being irreparably harmed by ineffective treatments, by a medical profession and activist class that doesn’t care about them.

This whole thing is so tragic I want to cry

 

[Roboramma]

You seem to be making a basic mistake .... the majority of women support trans rights.

So does literally everyone posting in this thread.

 

[LondonJohn]

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.



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 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.

But one cannot support the validity of transgender identity without thinking along the lines of "trans women are women". It's axiomatic.

This at the very heart of what transgender identity actually means. If you say "trans women are men who think they're women", then you do not support the validity of transgender identity.

So it's not simply an issue around the definition of terms: rather, the definition of terms essentially IS the debate.

Those who do not or will not support the validity of transgender identity believe - by definition - that "male" and "man" are always synonymous, as are "female" and "woman". Under their belief, for example, there's actually no such thing as a "trans woman" per se: instead, there's simply a man who thinks that he would like to be a woman. So under their belief, there's just no need to separate gender and sex: all biological males are men, and all biological females are women.


(Just as plenty of reactionary bigots used to argue that there was no such thing as a homosexual man per se: rather, there was a "normal" (ie heterosexual) man who - on account of deviancy or other psychiatric disorder - thought other men to be sexually desirable to him....)

 

[Earthborn]

You'd think that would be a sensible approach, and I would certainly support that approach. But that's not how it's currently done.

Don't blame the human rights failings of your country on the people fighting for human rights (such as the people who are fighting for people's right to define their own identities) and don't buy into the arguments from people who want to use those human rights failings as justification for more human rights failings (such as segregationist policies).

And once that is done, they become entitled to a handful of hormones,

Getting hormones does not depend on legal gender.

because failure to provide those hormones is considered gender identification discrimination.

A doctor still has an obligation to determine whether the treatment is appropriate for their patient, and to make sure there will be no significant adverse effects. One of the reasons for Self-ID is that requiring medical treatment for the social status of M or F is problematic because some trans persons may not be able to get hormones or surgery for medical reasons, but still want to live as the opposite sex.

You can doubt all you like... but that is EXACTLY what my niece did.

Did she first get her birth certificate changed? If not, her example has nothing to do the self-id law proposal.

 

[Meadmaker]

Here is my explanation of the logic of why I think private spaces and sports should be segregated by biological sex, and not based on any behavior associated with gender or declarations of gender identity.

Before I begin, a reminder of why this post exists. Archie Gemmel Goal made a comment saying that facts and logic were unpersuasive to many, and I suggested that there really wasn't a whole lot of logic being employed by him and people on "his side". I followed that up asking what parts of my arguments were illogical. AGG noted, correctly, that my post contained no logic, so I'm providing that logic here.

The actual argument spans several paragraphs. I'm going to put it in a spoiler, leaving the summary easily read.

Regarding private spaces where people are normally disrobed, partially or fully, but more so than they would normally be in a public space.

The primary consideration is privacy rights. People tend to want control over who sees them naked, or who sees them in minimal clothing or in clothing that is normally not meant to be seen. (Do I have to spell this out? Just in case, yes. Women don't normally walk around with just a pair of panties covering up their private parts.) This is particularly true if the observers are of the opposite sex. Being exposed, especially to the opposite sex, creates anxiety. (Obvious exceptions apply, but people want to be very careful about when to use those exceptions, and with whom.) This feeling of anxiety is generally more severe among women.

This feeling associated with being unclothed, especially in the presence of men, is sometimes termed "modesty", and it is a deeply rooted psychological reaction. I do not believe that it is fully created by society. I believe it is rooted in instinctual behavior. It is shaped, molded, and intensified by society, but I believe it is a natural phenomenon deeply rooted in the human psyche, related to ways in which sexual signaling is performed by human beings.

Part of this, but not all of it, is related to a legitimate fear of sexual assault. Men are generally bigger and stronger, and capable of rape. From time immemorial, rape actually happens to women. Once again, I believe this fear is not something created by society, nor is it an objectively rational evaluation of actual risk. There is an instinctive fear created by disrobing in the presence of someone who is capable of rape. That fear can be controlled, modified, or intensified by societal pressure or by conscious effort on the part of the person affected, but it perfectly normal and understandable. If a woman feels anxiety disrobing in the presence of a man, this is not a failure on her part. It is perfectly normal, and it is actually wise of women to pay attention to that anxiety, and not try and minimize it, because the threat of rape is very real, and women ought to be aware of that possibility at all times where it exists.

Note that I am talking about anxiety related to the fear of assault, and I am saying that this anxiety is natural, and should not be dismissed, even in cases where some sort of measures make assault extremely unlikely. For example, it seems almost impossible to think that a single, unarmed, young man, would rape a woman in a high school locker room when several young women are present and observing. Even in that situation though, a women would naturally feel uneasy disrobing in the presence of the man, and those feelings should not be dismissed or ignored.

To protect women both from a legitimate risk of rape, or from the anxiety that has its roots in a fear of assault, even if the actual risk is minimal in the specific circumstances present, areas where people are disrobed are segregated so that the disrobed women are only observed by other women.

If a male is allowed into those spaces, he will be perceived as a man, and those anxieties will be triggered. It does not matter what the internal state of mind of the male is. It is his presence as a male that causes the anxiety. If the person is bigger and stronger than the woman, and has the sexual equipment necessary to penetrate and/or impregnate a woman, then all of the elements are present to create a reasonable fear of disrobing in the presence of that male. Therefore, segregation by "gender" is inadequate to protect women. To the extent that the vulnerability to actual assault exists in those places, it can be perpetrated by a transwomen as easily as by a man. Likewise, even if the actual risk of assault is minimized by whatever means available, the associated anxiety is still triggered, just as if an "actual" man were present.

In other words, all arguments for excluding men from female spaces apply equally to trans-women.


Fear of sexual assault, whether an instinctive fear or an objective assessment of risk is not the only element involved in the desire to avoid disrobing in the presence of the opposite sex. Other elements involved are an anxiety about body judgement, and presence of concerns about attempts to engage people in erotic activity, i.e. flirting, being "hit on", or being "checked out". In the interests of brevity, I won't elaborate on those at this time. I'll just reserve comments until later. These issues can affect both men and women, but differently.

Finally, it may also be said that the transwoman may experience anxiety if required to use all male facilities. This can be avoided by providing a separate facility that can be accessed by the small number of transpeople who use those facilities. That solution is often rejected on the grounds that it is somehow unfair to treat transwomen differently than cis-women. In the interests of the reader's time, I won't give a lengthy argument about that at this time, but I will be succinct to the point of bluntness. I don't care. I care about safety, privacy, and access to facilities, but that's about the limit of my interests. If desired, I can elaborate and explain why, logically, I don't think I ought to care, but I will leave that for another time.

Also, I will be brief in commenting about sport. Sports have two important functions in society, which are entertainment and inspiration. People enjoy watching them, and they serve to promote healthy athleticism among spectators and competitors. In order to best fulfill those functions, the competitions must be among the best, most athletic, participants. A highly athletic well conditioned and well trained woman will generally lose to a much less athletic male. The presence of transwomen in women's sports means that the participants are not the most athletic or healthy competitors possible, and thus detract from enjoyment and inspirational value of both spectators and participants.

To summarize the logic:

Segregated locker rooms exist in order to avoid triggering fear of sexual assault among women. That fear is triggered by the physical characteristics of men, not by their internal thoughts. Therefore, segregation must be based on those physical characteristics, i.e. by biological sex, in order to achieve the objectives of the segregation.

I will add that completely private facilities for each individual would solve all of these concerns , but might present practical problems, i.e. cost, that prevent their implementation. I can elaborate further if desired.

Other considerations also exist, and those can affect both men and women, but I haven't elaborated on them.

 

[cullennz]

Trans woman - a person whose life is being irreparably harmed by ineffective treatments, by a medical profession and activist class that doesn’t care about them.



This whole thing is so tragic I want to cry

You appear to be implying being trans is a mental illness.

Not 100% sure I agree

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't put black people who murdered white people in a prison with white people?

Sometimes, yes. Jayvon Hatchett springs to mind.

 

[cullennz]

Sometimes, yes. Jayvon Hatchett springs to mind.

Would be good to know what "Romeo and Juliet type relationship" means with the other dude.

Didn't deserve to die though obviously

 

[TomB]

But one cannot support the validity of transgender identity without thinking along the lines of "trans women are women". It's axiomatic.

No, it’s not. I’ll continue my explanation by responding to the rest of your post.

This at the very heart of what transgender identity actually means. If you say "trans women are men who think they're women", then you do not support the validity of transgender identity.

Here is where you make your mistake. You assume that the alternative to “women” is “men who think they are women” and that’s not true, even though a few of your opponents have used that phrase. Leaving aside the word woman, trans people are not claiming to be biologically female. They are claiming to share the social identity commonly associated with females.

What is important is not the word, but the meaning. So instead of the word you define as the typically female social identity (women), we can use another term, say “group A” instead. “Trans women are group A” now means the same thing as your concept of @trans women are women” with your definition of woman.

However, historically women has not meant “the social identity commonly associated with women.” It has been a synonym of female, or as some have posited “adult human female”. In order for “ trans women are women” to be true, the term woman has to be redefined. But the concept can be true without redefining woman. If we don’t redefine woman, “Tran women are group A” can still be true.

Group A would be made up of trans women and cud women just as you would say women is made up of trans women and cis women. You will note I used the term cis women here. I did so for a different reason than usual. If we don’t redefine woman, then trans men are still women but they are women who share the identity group B with men.

The redefinition of the term woman is an area of dispute. But the concept represented is less controversial. It is possible to support the concept but not the terminology.

Now obviously, we aren’t going to say group A or group B. I’ve used the term “people who identify as women” which isn’t really accurate either. Maybe a more accurate phrase without redefinition would be trans woman and women share a female identity. Or something. It’s not as cool a phrase, but it doesn’t change the meaning of things like “Women’s health Center” either.

So it's not simply an issue around the definition of terms: rather, the definition of terms essentially IS the debate.

Those who do not or will not support the validity of transgender identity believe - by definition - that "male" and "man" are always synonymous, as are "female" and "woman". Under their belief, for example, there's actually no such thing as a "trans woman" per se: instead, there's simply a man who thinks that he would like to be a woman. So under their belief, there's just no need to separate gender and sex: all biological males are men, and all biological females are women.

As I illustrated above, it’s possible to separate gender and sex without separating women from female. In order separate woman from female, though, you have to redefine woman in terms of gender instead of sex.

There is, obviously resistance to this. You may interpret this resistance as anti-trans. And in some cases you would be correct. But not necessarily. It is also possible to support the concept of a shared gender identity without offering up “woman” as the name for that gender identity.

As I’ve said “woman” is a word that holds a lot of meaning for people on both sides. The power human adult females invest in the word has nothing to do with how they feel about trans women.

(Just as plenty of reactionary bigots used to argue that there was no such thing as a homosexual man per se: rather, there was a "normal" (ie heterosexual) man who - on account of deviancy or other psychiatric disorder - thought other men to be sexually desirable to him....)

The term bigot is thrown around a lot. And yes a bigot might suggest that homosexuality is the result of a psychiatric or genetic disorder. But a scientist investigating the cause of homosexuality might also put forward those hypotheses without being a bigot.

Also, terminology for medical and psychological issues changes. Sometimes not for technical reasons. Terms that are descriptive enter the common lexicon and become insults. Retarded is a case in point. Disorder is not a bad word.

 

[cullennz]

Tbf they are claiming they "know" what it is like to be a woman, which is frankly a bit of a dodgy thing given they in the majority were brought up as dudes.

 

[cullennz]

The Pacific islands got it quite a while ago with fa'afafine.

 

[Aber]

So long as sex (male/female) is not being confused with or conflated with gender (man/woman).

Explain how they differ in UK law.

 

[cullennz]

Explain how they differ in UK law.

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

 

[LondonJohn]

No, it’s not. I’ll continue my explanation by responding to the rest of your post.


Here is where you make your mistake. You assume that the alternative to “women” is “men who think they are women” and that’s not true, even though a few of your opponents have used that phrase. Leaving aside the word woman, trans people are not claiming to be biologically female. They are claiming to share the social identity commonly associated with females.

What is important is not the word, but the meaning. So instead of the word you define as the typically female social identity (women), we can use another term, say “group A” instead. “Trans women are group A” now means the same thing as your concept of @trans women are women” with your definition of woman.

However, historically women has not meant “the social identity commonly associated with women.” It has been a synonym of female, or as some have posited “adult human female”. In order for “ trans women are women” to be true, the term woman has to be redefined. But the concept can be true without redefining woman. If we don’t redefine woman, “Tran women are group A” can still be true.

Group A would be made up of trans women and cud women just as you would say women is made up of trans women and cis women. You will note I used the term cis women here. I did so for a different reason than usual. If we don’t redefine woman, then trans men are still women but they are women who share the identity group B with men.

The redefinition of the term woman is an area of dispute. But the concept represented is less controversial. It is possible to support the concept but not the terminology.

Now obviously, we aren’t going to say group A or group B. I’ve used the term “people who identify as women” which isn’t really accurate either. Maybe a more accurate phrase without redefinition would be trans woman and women share a female identity. Or something. It’s not as cool a phrase, but it doesn’t change the meaning of things like “Women’s health Center” either.



As I illustrated above, it’s possible to separate gender and sex without separating women from female. In order separate woman from female, though, you have to redefine woman in terms of gender instead of sex.

There is, obviously resistance to this. You may interpret this resistance as anti-trans. And in some cases you would be correct. But not necessarily. It is also possible to support the concept of a shared gender identity without offering up “woman” as the name for that gender identity.

As I’ve said “woman” is a word that holds a lot of meaning for people on both sides. The power human adult females invest in the word has nothing to do with how they feel about trans women.

Yes, I realise all of this. But realistically, we are never going to get to a situation where gender is described as (say) Type A (the gender typical of women/females) and Type B (the gender typical of men/males), thus enabling us to define transgender people as (say) men/males who are Trans-A.

I completely agree that such a system would be the closest to ideal as is probably possible. I also completely agree that a) the words "woman" and "female" are loaded with personal and societal meaning and b) are synonymous in general usage.

But

If transgender identity is going to gain recognition, then society may have to (slightly) adjust the way in which it defines certain terms*. In addition, even if these new "Type A" and "Type B" genders were to be used, it still wouldn't get us past certain issues: e.g. (some) women would still argue "how can this man possibly claim the identity of a Type A gender - only females/women know properly what it's like to be Type A"



* And we change the definition of words/terms fairly frequently in English. For example, 150 years ago "terrific" strictly and solely meant "causing or inducing terror".....

The term bigot is thrown around a lot. And yes a bigot might suggest that homosexuality is the result of a psychiatric or genetic disorder. But a scientist investigating the cause of homosexuality might also put forward those hypotheses without being a bigot.

You think that if a scientist in 2020 (or 1980 for that matter) put forward a hypothesis that homosexuality is in fact the product of a mental disorder.... this would be accepted academically (or in society in general) as a reasoned and un-noteworthy hypothesis??

Also, terminology for medical and psychological issues changes. Sometimes not for technical reasons. Terms that are descriptive enter the common lexicon and become insults. Retarded is a case in point. Disorder is not a bad word.

But that's not the issue here. The issue is whether identity/behavioural beliefs are either a) valid lived conditions in their own right, or b) disorders or the product of a disorder.

Calling something a disorder (or the product of one) necessarily implies two things: 1) that thing is an unwelcome aberration from the "norm", and 2) medicine has a valid claim for trying to either treat or "cure" that thing.

Schizophrenia is a disorder. It is an unwelcome aberration, and once diagnosed it's usually treated with various types of medical intervention - with the aim of minimising or even eradicating the disorder.

And this is exactly how transgenderism (and homosexuality, for that matter) used to be viewed - both by mainstream medicine/science/social-science and by society in general.

But not - thankfully - nowadays.

 

[LondonJohn]

Explain how they differ in UK law.

Ah, this one again.

Firstly, the distinction is in general use among the medical, scientific and social sciences communities with regard to transgender identity issues.

Secondly, the ONS paper I recently linked to explicitly makes the distinction (the ONS is a UK Government body)

And lastly, the very reason why UK (E&W) law currently regards sex and gender to be synonymous is precisely because that's how the public currently views them. And the law has to provide for that. Because.....

...for example, things like discrimination or aggravated harassment laws cannot allow for there to be a distinction. Otherwise somebody who (say) harassed a trans woman with something like "You're not female mate, you're not fooling anyone! You're bloody male!" could run a successful defence along the lines that he was strictly referring to the biological sex of the person (and was therefore simply speaking truth).

But hey-ho.

indeed.

 

[cullennz]

Ah, this one again.



Firstly, the distinction is in general use among the medical, scientific and social sciences communities with regard to transgender identity issues.



Secondly, the ONS paper I recently linked to explicitly makes the distinction (the ONS is a UK Government body)



And lastly, the very reason why UK (E&W) law currently regards sex and gender to be synonymous is precisely because that's how the public currently views them. And the law has to provide for that. Because.....



...for example, things like discrimination or aggravated harassment laws cannot allow for there to be a distinction. Otherwise somebody who (say) harassed a trans woman with something like "You're not female mate, you're not fooling anyone! You're bloody male!" could run a successful defence along the lines that he was strictly referring to the biological sex of the person (and was therefore simply speaking truth).



But hey-ho.



indeed.

Think it is more a PC thing tbh.

I think most people can distinguish between biological facts and personal touchy feely. My head thinks I should be this stuff.

 

[LondonJohn]

Of course you do, it's your lousy argument that we wouldn't be allowed to refute the validity of anymore - at least not in some ways.

There was an argument within this thread along the lines of: "one group (here: cis girls and women) cannot be allowed to be placed into a position of increased perceived & potential danger as a direct result of a civil rights law aimed at some other group (here: trans women)".

I then showed a counterexample where one group (here: white girls and women in the Southern states of the US in the 50s/60s) were placed into a position of increased perceived & potential danger as a direct result of a civil rights law aimed at some other group (here: black men).

I then pointed out that even though white girls/women were placed into a position of increased potential danger in my counterexample, the laws which had the consequence of placing them in that increased potential danger were (and remain) worthy and just laws. And, while regrettable and unfortunate, the net negative for white girls/women was a collateral price worth paying in order to achieve a greater societal good.

 

[LondonJohn]

Think it is more a PC thing tbh.

I think most people can distinguish between biological facts and personal touchy feely. My head thinks I should be this stuff.

No, that's not what's at issue here.

What's at issue is: are the words "man"/"male" and "woman"/"female" synonymous and interchangeable (respectively) for the general "man in the street"?

If it were generally understood that, for example, "female" exclusively referred to biological sex, and "woman" exclusively referred to gender, then transgender legislation could itself make that distinction: e.g. it would then constitute an offence to call a trans woman a "man", but it would not be an offence to call a trans woman a "male".

But as things stand in 2020, the words are interchangeable for most of the general public. And in turn, this means that the law must take that into account when framing legislation. Thus the law can (currently) effectively - and correctly - consider it an offence whether someone harasses (say) a trans man with either "You're a woman!" or "You're a female!".