Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[TomB]

And yet there clearly are extremists - on both sides.

From transwomen are just men, sit down and shut up, to my personal gender identity is all that matters and I should be able to walk into a chemist and demand copious amounts of free hormones.

I think the problem is that recognising trans identity as valid is pretty much step 1 and if you can't get to that point then there is little conversation to be had beyond that. If that point is being staked out as the argument's middle ground then I think that only shows the problem.

I mostly agree with this post, but I would add a caveat. I think that recognizing trans-identity is an important step. But I don't equate that with saying that the term "women" applies to them. (Please note, I'm also not saying that the term does not apply to them.

Now,hear me out....

(Sorry, this is going to be long. One of the reasons I don't post a lot is that I tend to go long and over-explain and/or over-account for counters in the name of completeness.)

For me, it's just a term. Same with man. I don't have an attachment to the term where it represents the experience I've lived, a centuries old struggle against oppression or a sisterhood united by biology and experience. (That's probably an inadequate description, but I'm trying to describe something I don't fully understand.)

But for at least some of the women in the world, there is a huge investment in that term. To them it represents all their experiences, which they closely tie to biology, which they see a huge factor in their daily lives, both social and otherwise. (Again, as a male, I don't see my biology affecting my daily choices and identity in the same ways or magnitude that it seems to for women.)

This combination of social and biological experience forms an identity they call women. You refer to it as cis-women. As you can see, some women are resistant to changing the name of their identity. when someone comes along and wants to change the term for the way you think of yourself (your identity) you are likely to resist that. This is especially true if there is a lot of emotion and pride invested. Such as that of a group that has been oppressed for thousands of years, and while still disadvantaged, has clawed their way to the point where they are finally seeing daylight. And yes, a lot of the people for which this is a big issue will be the ones most active in their struggle: feminists and radical feminists.

If you leave the terminology at trans-women and women, I think you will see acceptance that trans-women's experiences are valid, that trans-women is a valid experience identity.

Which is, as you say, step one.

But it seems that some people have tied that step to the redefinition of "woman" to be, instead of an identity, to be a set of identities which includes the identities of cis-woman and trans-woman. One can argue about the appropriateness of doing so all day, but it's not necessary to agree to the terminology change in order to accept what you say is step one.

Now, if I were to address the problem with logic, I'd say both sides attachment to the term "woman" are not strictly logical. They are just words, after all. But we are not talking logic. We are talking identity, emotion, and psychology. Not everything that is important makes objectively rational sense. And that's not easy for me to say because I generally tend to look first to logical arguments myself.

Not entirely related, but something to think on:
For some people, it looks like what is happening is this:

Trans activist: We are oppressed and want equal rights!
Feminists: We see you and support your struggle!
Trans activist: We should be treated the same as you!
Feminists: We can do that!
Trans activist: we want access to your spaces!
Feminists: Um, OK. As long as you meet X criteria and behave in manner Y.
Trans activist: We want full access! No restrictions.
Feminists: Now, wait a minute...
Trans activist: Full access! We are you! These are our spaces!
Feminists: Hold on now, these are women's spaces we have agreed to share with you...
Trans Activist: I am woman, hear me roar!
Feminists: Hey, that's our song!
(Felt a need for a Helen Reddy reference. Angie Baby was one of my favorite songs as a kid. RIP.)


Obviously, people with other viewpoints are going to see it differently. But that's the point. Instead of telling people they shouldn't see things differently, it is more productive to try and understand why they see it differently. And logic is the wrong tool for that.

 

[LondonJohn]

To be fair, it didn't take much. All I had to do was point out that racial segregation wasn't abolished by letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle sit at the front of the bus, and you had absolutely no worthwhile response. It was like knocking over a house of cards.

Oh my word. You have no idea. For a start, you don't even know the detail or the point of the pre-black-civil-rights laws in places such as Birmingham, Alabama (it had nothing whatsoever to do with sitting at the front of the bus....).

And then we shall consider your construction of the phrase "letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle". I think that one stands alone as a marker of ignorance and prejudice.

Lastly, let's get to the (bizarre) meat of your claim - which seems to be that abolishing racial segregation didn't abolish racial segregation...

There's only one house of cards being toppled round these parts - it's the house built on prejudice, mistrust, fear, bigotry and misunderstanding.

 

[LondonJohn]

And yet there clearly are extremists - on both sides.

From transwomen are just men, sit down and shut up, to my personal gender identity is all that matters and I should be able to walk into a chemist and demand copious amounts of free hormones.

I think the problem is that recognising trans identity as valid is pretty much step 1 and if you can't get to that point then there is little conversation to be had beyond that. If that point is being staked out as the argument's middle ground then I think that only shows the problem.

Yes and yes. Particularly with regard to your final paragraph.

As you do, I know there is a valid debate to be had around how transgender rights are to be implemented and protected. And part of that debate will be about how to implement transgender rights while still respecting the rights of other societal groups.

But - as you say - that debate is predicated on the starting position of an understanding that gender dysphoria is a valid condition (and not a disorder or the product of a disorder), and that therefore transgender identity is also a valid condition (since it's a product of gender dysphoria).

And if some people find it impossible even to get to that starting position, then (as you say) there's literally no debate/discussion to be had.

 

[theprestige]

Ah, well your problem here starts with the phrase "I have a penis but it doesn't count because I say so".

Because this is to completely misunderstand/misrepresent gender dysphoria.

It does, however, completely understand/represent the nature of self-id as a sole justification for access to female spaces.

 

[theprestige]

At least you understand the principle now.

And while I totally agree with your general premise above, I totally disagree with your (apparent) position that a) homosexuality is a valid human condition, but b) gender dysphoria is not.

Valid in what sense?

I don't think gender dysphoria is analogous to homosexuality when it comes to questions of segregation by sex or gender, if that's what you mean.

Once again, I choose to base my position on gender dysphoria and transgender identity upon the position of those who are the world's experts in precisely the field in which gender dysphoria and transgender identity reside.

And I'd be interested to learn why you (apparently) think different/better than the world's experts in this subject.

I honestly have no idea what it is you think I disagree with the world's experts about. Can you be specific about the points of disagreement that you see between me and them?

 

[TomB]

At least you understand the principle now.

And while I totally agree with your general premise above, I totally disagree with your (apparent) position that a) homosexuality is a valid human condition, but b) gender dysphoria is not.

Once again, I choose to base my position on gender dysphoria and transgender identity upon the position of those who are the world's experts in precisely the field in which gender dysphoria and transgender identity reside.

I don't think he actually holds this position.

And I'd be interested to learn why you (apparently) think different/better than the world's experts in this subject.

Nor do I think he holds this position.

But beyond that, none of the experts that either side has cited are on this forum to clarify (or defend) their views and how they think they should be applied in daily life. And even if they were, scientists do not dictate policy, though maybe you think they should.

There is a reason for that. A climatologist, for example, is an expert on climate and can say "We have to stop carbon emissions." When you develop policy in response to that, though, you have to take into account other factors such as the economic and social effects of shutting down gas/coal power plants and gasoline cars. Also, engineering factors such as the feasibility and time frame of replacing the energy source to be eliminated. Policy isn't confined to the area of expertise of one field. It crosses into many.

So a psychologist who is an authority on gender dysphoria is not necessarily an expert on how to address that in policy.

 

[Olmstead]

Oh my word. You have no idea. For a start, you don't even know the detail or the point of the pre-black-civil-rights laws in places such as Birmingham, Alabama (it had nothing whatsoever to do with sitting at the front of the bus....).

Yes, "sitting at the front of the bus" was an abstraction. It's a shorthand for racial segregation. I don't know why you're making a big deal out of it.

And then we shall consider your construction of the phrase "letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle". I think that one stands alone as a marker of ignorance and prejudice.

I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that the whole analogy is riduculous? Because it sounds to me like your saying the analogy is ridiculous. I concur.

Lastly, let's get to the (bizarre) meat of your claim - which seems to be that abolishing racial segregation didn't abolish racial segregation...

Abolishing racial segregation abolished racial segregation. Abolishing segregation only for a certain subset of black people wouldn't have abolished racial segregation.

 

[theprestige]

Oh my word. You have no idea. For a start, you don't even know the detail or the point of the pre-black-civil-rights laws in places such as Birmingham, Alabama (it had nothing whatsoever to do with sitting at the front of the bus....).

And then we shall consider your construction of the phrase "letting black people who had adopted the "white" lifestyle". I think that one stands alone as a marker of ignorance and prejudice.

Lastly, let's get to the (bizarre) meat of your claim - which seems to be that abolishing racial segregation didn't abolish racial segregation... : rolleyes :

There's only one house of cards being toppled round these parts - it's the house built on prejudice, mistrust, fear, bigotry and misunderstanding.

LOL.

Adopting a white lifestyle is to being black as adopting a woman's lifestyle is to being female.

Being black is to being white as being male is to being female.

Adopting a white lifestyle doesn't make a black person white.

Therefore, by analogy, adopting a woman's lifestyle doesn't make a male person female.

Race-based segregation cannot be solved by adopting the privileged race's lifestyle.

Therefore, by analogy, sex-based segregation cannot be solved by adopting the privileged sex's lifestyle.

Therefore, gender identity - adopting the lifestyle - is not a valid reason for to be exempted from sex-based segregation.

 

[LondonJohn]

I mostly agree with this post, but I would add a caveat. I think that recognizing trans-identity is an important step. But I don't equate that with saying that the term "women" applies to them. (Please note, I'm also not saying that the term does not apply to them.

Now,hear me out....

(Sorry, this is going to be long. One of the reasons I don't post a lot is that I tend to go long and over-explain and/or over-account for counters in the name of completeness.)

For me, it's just a term. Same with man. I don't have an attachment to the term where it represents the experience I've lived, a centuries old struggle against oppression or a sisterhood united by biology and experience. (That's probably an inadequate description, but I'm trying to describe something I don't fully understand.)

But for at least some of the women in the world, there is a huge investment in that term. To them it represents all their experiences, which they closely tie to biology, which they see a huge factor in their daily lives, both social and otherwise. (Again, as a male, I don't see my biology affecting my daily choices and identity in the same ways or magnitude that it seems to for women.)

This combination of social and biological experience forms an identity they call women. You refer to it as cis-women. As you can see, some women are resistant to changing the name of their identity. when someone comes along and wants to change the term for the way you think of yourself (your identity) you are likely to resist that. This is especially true if there is a lot of emotion and pride invested. Such as that of a group that has been oppressed for thousands of years, and while still disadvantaged, has clawed their way to the point where they are finally seeing daylight. And yes, a lot of the people for which this is a big issue will be the ones most active in their struggle: feminists and radical feminists.

If you leave the terminology at trans-women and women, I think you will see acceptance that trans-women's experiences are valid, that trans-women is a valid experience identity.

Which is, as you say, step one.

But it seems that some people have tied that step to the redefinition of "woman" to be, instead of an identity, to be a set of identities which includes the identities of cis-woman and trans-woman. One can argue about the appropriateness of doing so all day, but it's not necessary to agree to the terminology change in order to accept what you say is step one.

Now, if I were to address the problem with logic, I'd say both sides attachment to the term "woman" are not strictly logical. They are just words, after all. But we are not talking logic. We are talking identity, emotion, and psychology. Not everything that is important makes objectively rational sense. And that's not easy for me to say because I generally tend to look first to logical arguments myself.

Not entirely related, but something to think on:
For some people, it looks like what is happening is this:

Trans activist: We are oppressed and want equal rights!
Feminists: We see you and support your struggle!
Trans activist: We should be treated the same as you!
Feminists: We can do that!
Trans activist: we want access to your spaces!
Feminists: Um, OK. As long as you meet X criteria and behave in manner Y.
Trans activist: We want full access! No restrictions.
Feminists: Now, wait a minute...
Trans activist: Full access! We are you! These are our spaces!
Feminists: Hold on now, these are women's spaces we have agreed to share with you...
Trans Activist: I am woman, hear me roar!
Feminists: Hey, that's our song!
(Felt a need for a Helen Reddy reference. Angie Baby was one of my favorite songs as a kid. RIP.)


Obviously, people with other viewpoints are going to see it differently. But that's the point. Instead of telling people they shouldn't see things differently, it is more productive to try and understand why they see it differently. And logic is the wrong tool for that.

You are not properly separating biological sex (which is a scientific and medical absolute*) from gender (which is a social construct, a lived experience/mindset, which is subjective and fluid).


Let's perhaps try another analogy

Suppose you and all your friends are Chicago Bears fans. And let's say that the analogue of "sex" is "residence/birthplace", and the analogue of "gender" is "which football team you support".

So if someone (let's call him Bob) is born and raised in Chicago (= "sex"), the high likelihood is that this person will be a fan of the Chicago Bears (= "gender"). The person's birthright is a fixed, factual, immutable truth; while the fandom of the football team is a social condition, a lived experience, and so on.

Now let's take another person: Charlie. Charlie was born and raised in Baltimore. So the automatic presumption is that he will be a Baltimore Ravens fan (as are all of his friends). But Charlie doesn't feel like it's right for him to support the Ravens. He much prefers the football played by the Bears, to the extent that he identifies as a Bears fan.

So Charlie starts travelling to Bears games. He sits in the stands, among the other Bears fans - most of whom will have been born and raised in Chicago.

And the pertinent question is this: is Bob's lived experience of being a Bears fan in any way compromised/de-legitimised/diluted by the fact that sitting next to him in the stand, cheering for the Bears, is Charlie?


*stands back and prepares for (possibly deliberate) misinterpretation of what I've just written, by the usual suspect(s)*



* Except for in an extremely small proportion of people who are not born with a definitive binary sex.

 

[d4m10n]

...debate is predicated on the starting position of an understanding that gender dysphoria is a valid condition (and not a disorder or the product of a disorder), and that therefore transgender identity is also a valid condition (since it's a product of gender dysphoria).

I've yet to understand why you think this matters so much. You seem to be saying (correct me if I'm mistaken) that homosexuality is valid in the sense that clinicians don't try to cure it anymore, and that gender dysphoria is valid in the sense that clinicians don't try to cure it other than by helping the body to better align with the mind. This is all well and good, but it doesn't tell us whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was good public policy or not, or when HRT should be considered a human right which ought to be funded as part of public medical programs, or when sleeper berths should be shared between people of different sexes, etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

LOL.

Adopting a white lifestyle is to being black as adopting a woman's lifestyle is to being female.

Being black is to being white as being male is to being female.

Adopting a white lifestyle doesn't make a black person white.

Therefore, by analogy, adopting a woman's lifestyle doesn't make a male person female.

Race-based segregation cannot be solved by adopting the privileged race's lifestyle.

Therefore, by analogy, sex-based segregation cannot be solved by adopting the privileged sex's lifestyle.

Therefore, gender identity - adopting the lifestyle - is not a valid reason for to be exempted from sex-based segregation.

What is with all this "adopting an xxx lifestyle"??

That's not what gender dysphoria (or the desire to grant black civil rights) is about at all.

And to pretend it is... is to misrepresent the whole argument.

You see: trans women (for example) are not "adopting a woman's lifestyle". They are identifying as women. And if you cannot see the difference between those two things, then again there's no point in even having a discussion.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've yet to understand why you think this matters so much. You seem to be saying is that homosexuality is valid in the sense that clinicians don't try to cure it anymore, and that gender dysphoria is valid in the sense that clinicians don't try to cure it other than by helping the body to better align with the mind. This is all well and good, but it doesn't tell us whether "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was good public policy or not, or when HRT should be considered a human right which ought to be funded as part of public medical programs.

You're kidding, right?

The entire argument for the recognition and protection of transgender rights is predicated upon the fact that gender dysphoria is now considered (by the world's experts) to be a valid condition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes and yes. If I was transgender, I'm pretty sure that I'd be a) thorougly pissed off and b) persistent in my attempts to have my rights granted and respected.... all in an environment where all too many antediluvial attitudes exist.

Okay, now exercise your ability to extrapolate, and consider the situation if you were female...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a transgender person..... but paradoxically we deny your right to be treated as - and afforded the same rights as - cis women.

That would be because transgender women are not ciswomen. Duh.

FFS, you're at the point of semantic backflips, and you're not even landing those!

Compare to: Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a black man... but paradoxically we deny your right to be treated as - and afforded the same rights as - disabled people.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, "sitting at the front of the bus" was an abstraction. It's a shorthand for racial segregation. I don't know why you're making a big deal out of it.

Because 1) accuracy and clarity is somewhat important here, and 2) it's important to understand the "before" and "after" properly when one is considering what white girls and women (in particular) had to accept as potential increased risk in the "after" scenario.

I have no idea what your point is here. Are you saying that the whole analogy is riduculous? Because it sounds to me like your saying the analogy is ridiculous. I concur.

Ah no. I'm saying that your position is ridiculous. Sorry if that was unclear.

Abolishing racial segregation abolished racial segregation. Abolishing segregation only for a certain subset of black people wouldn't have abolished racial segregation.

Well firstly, what is the "certain subset of black people" to whom you're referring here? And secondly, in any case, abolishing segregation for a certain subset of black people would have abolished racial segregation for that certain subset of black people.

 

[theprestige]

What is with all this "adopting an xxx lifestyle"??

That's not what gender dysphoria (or the desire to grant black civil rights) is about at all.

And to pretend it is... is to misrepresent the whole argument.

You see: trans women (for example) are not "adopting a woman's lifestyle". They are identifying as women. And if you cannot see the difference between those two things, then again there's no point in even having a discussion.

Fair enough.

I'm happy to continue the discussion purely in terms of whether identifying as a woman is a valid basis for gaining an exemption from sex-based segregation. Do you think it is? Why or why not?

 

[theprestige]

You're kidding, right?

The entire argument for the recognition and protection of transgender rights is predicated upon the fact that gender dysphoria is now considered (by the world's experts) to be a valid condition.

Valid in what sense? Accuracy and clarity is somewhat important here.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Here's a tip: use your words to tell me what the analogy was about and why it makes sense in the context of this topic, then I will explain why I don't think it makes sense, and then you can use your words again to explain why my thinking is faulty. It will be like a discussion.

Alternatively, I can adopt your method of discussion instead:

I can't believe you think that analogy is in any way relevant. How silly.

Here's a tip. Go have a look at where I did exactly that several times.

Here's another tip. The same example has been used to draw two different analogies and you have failed to grasp them both times despite them being explained to you.

So no, I'm not going to bother walking you through it again just so you can ignore what is being said and repeat the same nonsense objection again.

 

[LondonJohn]

That would be because transgender women are not ciswomen. Duh.

FFS, you're at the point of semantic backflips, and you're not even landing those!

Compare to: Just for clarification, none of the people in this thread want to discriminate against you. None of us deny your existence as a black man... but paradoxically we deny your right to be treated as - and afforded the same rights as - disabled people.

I have literally no idea what you meant by your last paragraph.

And it seems to me that you're still stuck on the fundamental matter of transgender identity: you appear to be stuck on your belief that it's somehow a pretence and not truly "real". Nobody is claiming that trans women are cis women. But people (including me, and including the world's experts in this field, and including many of the world's major governments) are claiming stating that biological males who identify as women are experiencing a valid condition, and that as such they must be afforded the rights and protections which are conferred upon women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There's an axiomatic paradox between

1) I do not deny your existence as a transgender person

and

2) I believe trans women are not women, and I do not believe that trans women should be treated within society as women.


(1), rephrased, tells us that the person accepts that transgender identity is a real, valid condition; but (2) tells us that the person does not accept that transgender identity is a real, valid condition.

No, and here's where you're working from a premise that is unfounded. Your prior is not established as a valid assumption.

I accept that transgender people have gender dysphoria. I accept that transgender people feel that their internal sense of self does not align with their physical bodies. I accept that transgender people believe that their internal feeling is that of a person of the opposite biological sex.

Accepting that they hold a particular belief, and that this belief causes distress and anxiety, does not imply that I agree that their belief is correct and a reflection of reality.

I accept that religious people believe that god exists. I accept that they feel deep in their hearts that god is real. I even feel that religious people should be treated with dignity and respect. But I don't accept that their belief is correct or that it is a reflection of reality.

I can accept that they believe in god, while simultaneously not accepting that god is real myself.

Thus, I accept that people with gender dysphoria experience actual anxiety and distress and that they believe their dysphoria is cased by their internal selves being of the opposite sex than their bodies are. I can accept their belief, and treat them with dignity and respect, while simultaneously not accepting their belief as correct or as a reflection of reality.

You've taken the position that to accept that another person believes something to be true is to accept that the thing they believe is actually really true. This is an unsound premise.