Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Meadmaker]

I have a serious question for the "other side" in this discussion. I really am genuinely curious and not trying to "score points".


What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

So, what can we say about them during that period where they were self-declared trans-people, with or without affirmation of medical specialists? If a male transitions to a transwoman, socially or phyically, and then later says he was a man all along, and reverts to self declaration as male, was he "really" a woman during them time he declared himself to be one? Was he "not really" a transperson during that time? Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

To try and go further in the explanation of the significance of the question, some people say that being transgender is not a wish to behave in a certain way, or to have others behave toward you in a certain way, but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being. So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?


(And, I mean that as a sincere question, because I really don't know how anyone would answer it. I'm not trying to score points by asking the question. However, I'm not so brazen as to say I might never want to use the answer as part of an argument, i.e. to score points, at a later time. I really don't know the answer right now.)

 

[Paul2]

It’s hard to say of course. There’s the very common perception that ‘male’ is the same as ‘default’ which ends up having connotations for both genders. It ends up feeling like ‘male behavior’ is ‘everything that isn’t female behavior.’ To the point where in fiction, genderless robots are always ‘he’ unless you add pink paint or a boob plate.

Yes, that's what I was trying to show an alternative to.

This is both less and more so now than it was when I was a kid. Little kids’ stuff is WAY more gendered, yet at the same time it’s not a movie-title-worthy joke when a guy has a large role in taking care of kids.

How would you describe the strict biological influence on maleness of growing up as a guy? Is it like, everyone expecting you to be able to do a pull-up, fret over what your junk looks like, and Have Sons For Your Family?

Well, those things you bring up are not strictly biological. I don't even know that an individual is capable of figuring out whether something is strictly biological or not. How would one go about that? Seems like a job for science.

 

[Earthborn]

What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

I am pretty skeptical that there are a significant number of people who transition all the way from one sex to the other, and then want to go all the way back again. These treatments are not really that easily accessible, so someone would have to be pretty persistent in their gender identity to even transition once. In places where treatment is less medicalised and offered without too many questions, the number of people who were rushed through treatment may be a bit higher.

Probably more common are people who decide to live as the other gender for a while and after some time decide that it isn't right for them. That is transitioning and detransitioning, but without too much medical interference. And it is fine. Sometimes you just have to try something to see if it makes you happy.

Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

Not really, no.

... but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being.

When we are talking about "very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of being" we have to venture into some really complicated and probably dicy philosophical issues. It is probably safer to just describe issues of "gender identity" as "deeply felt sense of self". Whether that sense of self is "the true nature of their being" shouldn't really matter.

So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?

We can say about their "true" selves that maybe their identity would be better described as "demigender" or "non-binary" or whatever.

 

[Matthew Best]

I have a serious question for the "other side" in this discussion. I really am genuinely curious and not trying to "score points".


What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

So, what can we say about them during that period where they were self-declared trans-people, with or without affirmation of medical specialists? If a male transitions to a transwoman, socially or phyically, and then later says he was a man all along, and reverts to self declaration as male, was he "really" a woman during them time he declared himself to be one? Was he "not really" a transperson during that time? Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

To try and go further in the explanation of the significance of the question, some people say that being transgender is not a wish to behave in a certain way, or to have others behave toward you in a certain way, but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being. So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?


(And, I mean that as a sincere question, because I really don't know how anyone would answer it. I'm not trying to score points by asking the question. However, I'm not so brazen as to say I might never want to use the answer as part of an argument, i.e. to score points, at a later time. I really don't know the answer right now.)

That reminded me of this story I saw on the BBC website recently:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51806011

Ellie and Nele: From she to he - and back to she again

 

[cullennz]

I am pretty skeptical that there are a significant number of people who transition all the way from one sex to the other, and then want to go all the way back again. These treatments are not really that easily accessible, so someone would have to be pretty persistent in their gender identity to even transition once. In places where treatment is less medicalised and offered without too many questions, the number of people who were rushed through treatment may be a bit higher.



Probably more common are people who decide to live as the other gender for a while and after some time decide that it isn't right for them. That is transitioning and detransitioning, but without too much medical interference. And it is fine. Sometimes you just have to try something to see if it makes you happy.Not really, no.



When we are talking about "very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of being" we have to venture into some really complicated and probably dicy philosophical issues. It is probably safer to just describe issues of "gender identity" as "deeply felt sense of self". Whether that sense of self is "the true nature of their being" shouldn't really matter.



We can say about their "true" selves that maybe their identity would be better described as "demigender" or "non-binary" or whatever.

And maybe they should seek some professional psychological health advice.

 

[Meadmaker]

I am pretty skeptical that there are a significant number of people who transition all the way from one sex to the other, and then want to go all the way back again. These treatments are not really that easily accessible, so someone would have to be pretty persistent in their gender identity to even transition once. In places where treatment is less medicalised and offered without too many questions, the number of people who were rushed through treatment may be a bit higher.

Probably more common are people who decide to live as the other gender for a while and after some time decide that it isn't right for them. That is transitioning and detransitioning, but without too much medical interference. And it is fine. Sometimes you just have to try something to see if it makes you happy.Not really, no.

When we are talking about "very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of being" we have to venture into some really complicated and probably dicy philosophical issues. It is probably safer to just describe issues of "gender identity" as "deeply felt sense of self". Whether that sense of self is "the true nature of their being" shouldn't really matter.

We can say about their "true" selves that maybe their identity would be better described as "demigender" or "non-binary" or whatever.

Thanks.

I think a lot of people would have that general view, and that the philosophical aspects are not all that important, and perhaps a distraction.

 

[Lithrael]

Well, those things you bring up are not strictly biological. I don't even know that an individual is capable of figuring out whether something is strictly biological or not. How would one go about that? Seems like a job for science.

True. I was attempting to dig for things that have to do with literally having a male body as opposed to things people expect from you because they know you are male. But I see I didn’t really hit. Whereas having to worry about getting pregnant is strictly biology.

But jumping off from there, even as a woman worrying about running afoul of a guy that wants to easily overpower you, it’s not actually about what body you have but rather about the body someone expects you to have because they perceive you as female. If you were passing as a guy you might get left alone, unless your stature was slight enough to still look muggable as a guy.

 

[Elaedith]

That reminded me of this story I saw on the BBC website recently:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51806011

Ellie and Nele: From she to he - and back to she again

I was recently watching this interview with a Scottish woman, Sianead Watson, who de-transitioned - another in Boyce's series on transgender and gender critical issues. It's long (and just rambling for the first 7 minutes) but I found it fascinating. She is very well informed about current issues including the effects of ideology on research and clinical practice.

 

[TomB]

Yes, that's what I was trying to show an alternative to.
Well, those things you bring up are not strictly biological. I don't even know that an individual is capable of figuring out whether something is strictly biological or not. How would one go about that? Seems like a job for science.

That's why I think biology affects women more overtly than it does males. There's this whole 28 day cycle thing.

 

[cullennz]

That's why I think biology affects women more overtly than it does males. There's this whole 28 day cycle thing.

Wouldn't totally agree with that, but admit the whole cycle thing must be a pain in the ****

 

[cullennz]

As in just annoying. Not anything else

 

[LondonJohn]

For all of your pretense at logic, you seem woefully lacking in basic critical thinking and the foundation of logical comprehension.

Not all A are X, but ONLY A are X. X is a sufficient characteristic, but is not a necessary characteristic. If, however, ~X is universal characteristic, then that is sufficient to identify the item in question as ~A.

Not all females can bear children, but only females can bear children. No males can bear children, therefore males are not females.

Who here is trying to argue that males are females?

I think that maybe you need to read my post again. Slowly. And properly. And try to keep the distinction between sex and gender in your mind as you do so.


"...your pretense at logic" BWAHAHAHAHA!

 

[LondonJohn]

Number 1.

If the truth be told, whether or not an attitude is mainstream, common, or anything else doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is correct. However, you did introduce the subject, by declaring Andre's attitudes as an "outlier". The reason I decided to jump in, though, is that I see this sort of dismissal as a rather persistent feature of your writings. We don't have to worry about those people because they are throwbacks and not worthy of engaging. In terms of public policy and/or social acceptance, you're wrong. If you want your views to become the societal norm, you have to sell those views to the masses. Do not make the mistake of believing you have already done so.

ETA: Actually, I'm not sure I even understand the question. I thought it was meant as an either/or, but rereading it, I'm not sure.

So, my commentary above stands. In terms of being correct, it doesn't matter what people think. In terms of social acceptance, the beliefs described aren't outliers.

In terms of either one and the question of relevance to attitudes about homosexuality, I don't think there's much connection. People's beliefs about homosexuality have no bearing whatsoever toward the correctness of your position on transgenderism, because people's beliefs on anything have no bearing on the correctness of your beliefs. As for the relevance of acceptance of homosexuality and a comparison to the acceptance of some position on transgender issues, there is an obvious correlation. People who believed, or still believe, that homosexuality is sinful are more likely to believe that transgenderism isn't a "real" thing (whatever that means).

My comment about helium was to illustrate that while homosexuality and transgenderism may be correlated in the world of public opinion, there is not, for an awful lot of people, including all of the participants in this thread, any real connection. You need not remind us that the sinfulness of homosexuality was once a mainstream belief, because it doesn't really influence our thinking about transgenderism. In a way it was an unfair comment, because the two are obviously connected in the world of the public at large, and that was under discussion at the time, but for me and other people here, it just doesn't matter. There's no real connection.

I suggest that there is quite a degree of correlation between a) rejection of homosexuality as a valid condition worthy of its own rights, and b) rejection of gender dysphoria & transgender identity as valid conditions worthy of their own rights.

If you disagree, that's fine. But strangely, you actually appear to agree, judging by the penultimate sentence of your post above (notwithstanding that you then appear to contradict this immediately in your final sentence).

And I'm trying to figure out what you mean in any case. Your initial response to my "outlier" post was to say that it wasn't an outlier since it was probably the mainstream belief in places such as the USA. I then addressed that by pointing out what mainstream belief in places such as the USA had been, not very long ago, in respect of homosexuality and gay rights - my point was that mainstream beliefs in these sorts of areas can very often (maybe always) be bigoted, reactionary and wrong - until people start to learn better through a combination of the law, the media, peer-group shifts, and education.

But now you're seeming to be addressing this by making it purely about the participants in this thread?

Again, my suggestion is this: if mainstream belief in (eg) the USA on transgender rights is in line with MisAndreG's, then mainstream USA is reactionary and wrong. But fortunately mainstream USA will learn better about transgender rights before too long, just as it did in respect of gay rights.


And I entirely stand by my original statement that the views expressed in MisAndreG are an outlier. Again, if you think that those views are anywhere close to the moderate section of the spectrum..... well, that's your prerogative of course (but you're wrong).


And..... where on earth did you draw your inference from these words of mine:

1) "I think this is perhaps the definition of an "outlier" position on the spectrum of views"

.... to be this (your words):

2) "I see this sort of dismissal as a rather persistent feature of your writings. We don't have to worry about those people because they are throwbacks and not worthy of engaging"


I'd certainly like to know how you got from (1) to (2). But I would hazard a guess that your "conclusions" are in fact projections (maybe with a dollop of confirmation bias thrown in).


ETA: for politeness (and, I imagine, relevance....), the user name of the person who made the posts which I called "outliers" is not Andre, it's MisAndreG.

 

[LondonJohn]

That's why I think biology affects women more overtly than it does males. There's this whole 28 day cycle thing.

Females
And yes, many women do indeed experience pain, discomfort, inconvenience and/or embarrassment related to female biology.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a serious question for the "other side" in this discussion. I really am genuinely curious and not trying to "score points".


What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

So, what can we say about them during that period where they were self-declared trans-people, with or without affirmation of medical specialists? If a male transitions to a transwoman, socially or phyically, and then later says he was a man all along, and reverts to self declaration as male, was he "really" a woman during them time he declared himself to be one? Was he "not really" a transperson during that time? Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

To try and go further in the explanation of the significance of the question, some people say that being transgender is not a wish to behave in a certain way, or to have others behave toward you in a certain way, but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being. So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?


(And, I mean that as a sincere question, because I really don't know how anyone would answer it. I'm not trying to score points by asking the question. However, I'm not so brazen as to say I might never want to use the answer as part of an argument, i.e. to score points, at a later time. I really don't know the answer right now.)

Well firstly, one thing which jumped out immediately when I read your post was this. And I think it possibly speaks to certain prevailing attitudes.

Because if a male man (i.e. a cis man) transitioned and became a trans woman, but then some time later transitioned back to being a cis man, it wouldn't be a matter of the person "say(ing) he was a man all along". It would be a matter of the person transitioning from man to woman, and then from woman to man. During the person's "trans woman" period - up until the person started identifying as a man again - that person would have identified as a woman. And that period of "woman" identity wouldn't change (or be somehow erased) when the person transitioned back from woman to man.

On the meat of your question though: I - like Earthborn - don't suspect there are (or will be) many people who do go through this gender 1 - gender 2 - gender 1 process. And on top of that, I suspect there will currently be only a very small smattering of good data in this area (including good qualititive analysis).

But I suspect that where these sorts of cases do occur, they'll mainly be among teenagers and young adults. People of these ages often struggle to find their identity in all sorts of ways (i.e. other than gender identity issues), and consequently they can quite often "chop and change" their identity choices as they progress into full adulthood. So yes, I can see there being instances of younger people who transition, but who then decide to transition back at a later date. This, incidentally, is one of the reasons why I have always suggested (including within posts here) that transgender identity issues among young people should be handled especially carefully - particularly when it comes to medical or surgical intervention.


And when it comes to your point about whether someone who (say) transitions man-woman-man was ever "really" a woman...... well, once again I'm afraid, this somewhat reveals a certain (mis)understanding of transgender identity and gender dysphoria. Because it's perfectly clear: if (say) a cis man becomes a trans woman in 2020 and then becomes a cis man again in 2025, the person is a man up to 2020, a woman between 2020 and 2025, and a man from 2025 onwards.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Number 1.

If the truth be told, whether or not an attitude is mainstream, common, or anything else doesn't have anything to do with whether or not it is correct. However, you did introduce the subject, by declaring Andre's attitudes as an "outlier". The reason I decided to jump in, though, is that I see this sort of dismissal as a rather persistent feature of your writings. We don't have to worry about those people because they are throwbacks and not worthy of engaging. In terms of public policy and/or social acceptance, you're wrong. If you want your views to become the societal norm, you have to sell those views to the masses. Do not make the mistake of believing you have already done so.

ETA: Actually, I'm not sure I even understand the question. I thought it was meant as an either/or, but rereading it, I'm not sure.

So, my commentary above stands. In terms of being correct, it doesn't matter what people think. In terms of social acceptance, the beliefs described aren't outliers.

In terms of either one and the question of relevance to attitudes about homosexuality, I don't think there's much connection. People's beliefs about homosexuality have no bearing whatsoever toward the correctness of your position on transgenderism, because people's beliefs on anything have no bearing on the correctness of your beliefs. As for the relevance of acceptance of homosexuality and a comparison to the acceptance of some position on transgender issues, there is an obvious correlation. People who believed, or still believe, that homosexuality is sinful are more likely to believe that transgenderism isn't a "real" thing (whatever that means).

My comment about helium was to illustrate that while homosexuality and transgenderism may be correlated in the world of public opinion, there is not, for an awful lot of people, including all of the participants in this thread, any real connection. You need not remind us that the sinfulness of homosexuality was once a mainstream belief, because it doesn't really influence our thinking about transgenderism. In a way it was an unfair comment, because the two are obviously connected in the world of the public at large, and that was under discussion at the time, but for me and other people here, it just doesn't matter. There's no real connection.

There should be no real connection, and yet there is. And I as keep coming back to, I think that tells us something more than it being a mere coincidence.

I don't know where you live but your idea of mainstream and my idea of mainstream feel quite different. To me the idea that transgenderism is a lot of nonsense is one that would be considered alongside evolution isn't real, climate change isn't happening and vaccines cause autism in the 'fringe anti-science lunacy' category.

We can all have discussions about what the social and policy implications of accepting transgender people as a legitimate thing are, but the idea that they aren't a legitimate thing to start with is fringe, anti-science, and wrong to the best of our knowledge.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

It’s hard to say of course. There’s the very common perception that ‘male’ is the same as ‘default’ which ends up having connotations for both genders. It ends up feeling like ‘male behavior’ is ‘everything that isn’t female behavior.’ To the point where in fiction, genderless robots are always ‘he’ unless you add pink paint or a boob plate.

This is both less and more so now than it was when I was a kid. Little kids’ stuff is WAY more gendered, yet at the same time it’s not a movie-title-worthy joke when a guy has a large role in taking care of kids.

How would you describe the strict biological influence on maleness of growing up as a guy? Is it like, everyone expecting you to be able to do a pull-up, fret over what your junk looks like, and Have Sons For Your Family?

Again, I don't think they are strict biological influences, but more societal overlays on top of biological differences but if you want a rough outline...

From an early age boys are expected to be physical, aggressive, competitive, more badly behaved. Because that's what 'boys' are like. So you are expected to play sports and fight in the playground, and if you are the kind of boy who likes to read poetry then you are a cissy, or gay.

Once they hit puberty they are expected to be walking sacks of hormones and penises. Success is defined by how many girls you can sleep with which also drives a lot of behaviour around establishing dominance, being ultra competitive, having to be ripped and a lot of insecurities if you don't happen to meet the desired stereotypes of being tall, muscly and big-dicked. If you prefer to stay home, study and write short-stories then you are a virgin loser.

Move on a bit and the same stuff is in play but now you are also supposed to establish yourself as a 'powerful' man in business/work life. God forbid you want to be a carer or work with kids - then you are probably a paedo because you have a penis. In all situations you are a potential rapist and have to treat yourself as such.

And as an adult you have to walk the tightrope of simultaneously being both a powerful, successful, assertive, sexually-dominant alpha-male while also acknowledging that all of this is also toxic masculinity and undesirable and you are expected to settle down, have kids and be a loving, caring, father despite never having been prepared for that by society. Don't overdo it though because you still have to be a 'man'.

Then being a male kills you sooner than being a female either because all of the above BS stresses your heart to the point where it konks out, or your prostate/balls get cancer or you never get to that point because you sat in your car with the exhaust piped into the cabin one day just to get away from it all.

And that's not to come over all 'woe is me' about being a man. We have it good in a number of ways as well. But these 'biology' things works both ways. What I do think though is that a transwoman is not going to experience the same things as a cisman growing up just because they have penises and balls. And from the moment they start transitioning that experience is going to diverge.

So if we only look at biology then we are missing something major - because if you want to insist that transwomen are not women because they have a penis and testicles and don't have the experience of being women then I'm going to say that they are also not men simply because they have a penis and testicles without the experience of being a man.

So again this biological essentialism completely fails to recognise the reality of society.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I have a serious question for the "other side" in this discussion. I really am genuinely curious and not trying to "score points".


What is your attitude toward people who "detransition". i.e. There are people out there who declare themselves transmen or transwomen, and possibly go through some or all physical transitioning available to modern medicine, but later in their lives declare that they are actually still the gender associated with their biological sex.

So, what can we say about them during that period where they were self-declared trans-people, with or without affirmation of medical specialists? If a male transitions to a transwoman, socially or phyically, and then later says he was a man all along, and reverts to self declaration as male, was he "really" a woman during them time he declared himself to be one? Was he "not really" a transperson during that time? Do those words ("really" or "not really") have any real meaning?

To try and go further in the explanation of the significance of the question, some people say that being transgender is not a wish to behave in a certain way, or to have others behave toward you in a certain way, but is a very real, ontological, statement about the true nature of their being. So, when someone switches their self declaration from cis-gender to transgender and then back again, what can we say about their "true" selves during or after the various declarations?


(And, I mean that as a sincere question, because I really don't know how anyone would answer it. I'm not trying to score points by asking the question. However, I'm not so brazen as to say I might never want to use the answer as part of an argument, i.e. to score points, at a later time. I really don't know the answer right now.)

My attitude to them would be to be caring and empathetic to them. I think you would have to listen to their stories and understand their specific situations.

Maybe they were misdiagnosed or maybe they had expectations of transition that weren't realised, maybe they had issues of not feeling accepted as the gender they wanted to be, there could be a million things going on.

Again, if they were sincerely living as a transwoman during the period of transition then they should have been treated as a woman during that period and if it didn't work out then they should be treated as a man again if they detransition.

Again, I still think this hunting for definitions of whether they are REALLY men or women or whatever is a red herring. They are individuals who are obviously struggling with something and need support and empathy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

True. I was attempting to dig for things that have to do with literally having a male body as opposed to things people expect from you because they know you are male. But I see I didn’t really hit. Whereas having to worry about getting pregnant is strictly biology.

I'm not sure it is strictly biology, because the worry is also about society's reactions to being pregnant - e.g. access to contraception/abortion, society's views of someone who has had an abortion, the implications of motherhood etc etc

The direct biological corollary for a male would be 'having to worry about getting someone pregnant'.

But jumping off from there, even as a woman worrying about running afoul of a guy that wants to easily overpower you, it’s not actually about what body you have but rather about the body someone expects you to have because they perceive you as female. If you were passing as a guy you might get left alone, unless your stature was slight enough to still look muggable as a guy.

I'm pretty sure guys get mugged every day. Actually i haven't looked at what the figures are for gender differences in mugging victims but I do know that men are more likely to be murdered than women at a rate of about 3:1 in the US I think.

I had a quick look at Wiki and the numbers seem to suggest that men are more likely to be the victims of violent crime than women. Waters are obviously muddied because guys are probably more likely to in situations where violent crimes may occur so it's hard to translate that to a risk of someone walking along the street being mugged. But I think the simple idea that guys don't have to worry about attacks because of their biology is not right.

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

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I see no reason why shared experiences should not be based on biology in part. For instance: childbirth. You might say that the experience of childbirth is mediated through gender, but there is still the thing that is being mediated, which is the biological fact of childbirth. It's still there and has its influence.

I see no reason why shared experiences should not be based on biology in part either. What I disagree with is insisting that part is the only part that matters. I also believe there is a huge overestimation on to the size of the biology part because if I pluck two men or two women at random from the Earth then their experiences are going to be hugely different