Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Emily's Cat]

Who here is trying to argue that males are females?

You were arguing that pregnancy cannot be considered a defining characteristic of females, because not all females give birth. You made exactly the fallacy that I outlined.

Pregnancy is a defining characteristic. It is a sufficient, but not necessary characteristic of being female. And you can't reject it on the basis that not all females give birth, and then imply that females who don't give birth then somehow fail to meet the definition of female in the first place. You were treating it as if pregnancy is NOT a discriminatory element that clearly divides males from females.

 

[theprestige]

Who here is trying to argue that males are females?

Well, there is this:

There is nothing misrepresenting my anatomy on my records. It's just that I am listed as female on my records

This is not a very reassuring window into transgender reasoning. I suppose the good news is that Boudicca doesn't speak for all trans people.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This claim, or substantially similar ones, have been made several times throughout this thread.

Nobody is denying that transgenderism is a thing. I think all of us agree that gender dysphoria is a real condition that actually exists.

The difference in perspectives comes from what follows. Some people, you among them, seem to feel that transgenderism means that the person experiencing it really actually truly fundamentally *is* whatever gender they claim to be. You seem to hold the view that if a person is a transwoman, that genuinely means that that person is indistinguishable form any other women or female on the planet, because some internal element of that person makes it an absolute truth that they are a woman.

Other people, myself included, acknowledge that gender dysphoria exists, and that this condition makes the person in question sincerely believe that they are a woman. But since that individual has neither the biology nor the lived experience of a woman, they are not, in actual fact, a woman. No more so than a person who sincerely believes that god will answer their prayers is in actual fact correct about their belief.

Most of us on that other side still take the position that in some cases, the condition itself cannot be reasonably treated by traditional psychological means. That implies that in some cases, the best available treatment for that person is to allow them to try to blend in and live as the gender they believe themselves to be. Which in turn requires consent and cooperation from females.

 

[theprestige]

Well let's all hope you're never brought into the ER unconscious and hence unable to correct the doctors' assumptions, possibly leading to serious complications if treatment is administered on the basis of such flawed assumptions.

Or even brought into the ER conscious, but not arsed to volunteer your actual anatomy, resulting in mistreatment and negative health outcomes because nobody thought to ask if you were actually female and might be pregnant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is a good post, AGG, and does a good job of outlining the social pressure of gender expectations from a male perspective.

One thing I would add to this is that a significant amount of this gender-based conditioning occurs in children while very young. Those stereotypes, roles, and behavioral expectations are being fed to children and reinforced from infancy.

One point you bring up is the treatment of boys who like girly things as young children. Girls have long had the ability to be tomboys prior to puberty. We might sometimes get frowns, but it's not a big deal while we're still children. Boys, on the other hand, get significant discouragement if they show interest in girl things.

At puberty, girls lose agency and become confined by those social expectations. And as nice as it would be to pretend that they're only social norms... those norms are very closely tied to biology. Some of them are just pure BS (girls should be quite, friendly, cooperative, and not pushy). But a lot of them are tied to the biological fact of being able to get pregnant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What's weird to me is that they even ask questions about parts you don't have in the first place. When I go in to see a new doctor, there's nothing in my medical records that would cause them to assume I have certain parts that I don't have.

What's the advantage of misrepresenting your physical anatomy on your medical records?

Not sure it's all that clear cut. I mean, sure a transwoman isn't going to have a cervix or a uterus, and won't be at risk for a lot of female issues like endometriosis or fibroids or ovarian cysts. On the other hand, if a transwoman takes HRT and grows boobs, she should still be getting mammograms.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Unfortunately it seems like the most common reason for detransitioning among the people I know has been they had to stop HRT for medical and/or financial reasons. They are still transgender, but can't afford the treatments necessary to help them to live as they truly are, so they go back in the closet.

Genuine question here. Why wouldn't they be able to still dress and behave however they are comfortable? Transvestites and Drag Queens already do this... why is there a difference for transgender people?

 

[Earthborn]

Wouldn't biological sex (what's on the birth certificate) be relevant in the context of a pregnancy test?

Biological sex would be relevant, what is on one's birth certificate would not. The sex on someone's birth certificate does not always reflect their biological sex.

First: people can have their birth certificate changed. We had a whole discussion about whether that should be made a teeny tiny bit easier.
Second: in some cases the sex recorded on a person's birth certificate was incorrect from the start. It is quite likely a biological male born with some form of intersex condition to be assigned female.

I mean, maybe it's impolite to say so, but it really seems like a transwoman protesting over being denied a pregnancy test should rightfully be considered our of her mind.

Obviously I presented an ridiculous hypothetical to point out that taking legal gender too seriously can lead to ridiculous outcomes, and that therefore it should not be seen in all circumstances as the sole determinant of what constitutes "sex" in discrimination cases. The "protected characteristic" of sex in UK anti-discrimination law probably refers to biological sex.

 

[Paul2]

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

Agreed, but key word is "overtly."

 

[Emily's Cat]

Or even brought into the ER conscious, but not arsed to volunteer your actual anatomy, resulting in mistreatment and negative health outcomes because nobody thought to ask if you were actually female and might be pregnant.

This example gets brought up a lot. I just recently got to that stage in Volume 1 of this thread. I don't think this is a good example to use. I mean, it makes a good narrative, but I don't think it's being well-represented here.

From what I read, the person in question did actually tell the admitting nurse that they were transgender and were female at birth. The nurse wrote down "male" on the records... which is a socially nice thing to do, but is medically incorrect.

At the end of the day, the transman could have made a lot more noise about it*, but I put the fault on the medical staff who decided that affirming his social identity was more important than accurately representing his sex. How much of that is societal pressure to affirm.. that's a different question.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*The transman could feasibly have made more of a deal of it... and I'm going to speculate that if they were actually male they would have. But having been raised as female, they would have internalized all of the social conditioning that comes along with being female... which includes 'not making a big deal out of things' and 'not being pushy' and 'wait your turn' and 'don't make a scene'.

One can never know for certain, but their silence and willingness to just wait and trust the doctors in this situation are more suggestive of stereotypical female social behaviors.

 

[caveman1917]

Or even brought into the ER conscious, but not arsed to volunteer your actual anatomy, resulting in mistreatment and negative health outcomes because nobody thought to ask if you were actually female and might be pregnant.

That one's just plain stupid though.

If I were in Boudicca's situation I'd have a note in my wallet next to my ID saying something like: "In case of medical treatment: I am a non-op transwoman, I have male physiology with the following surgeries having been performed..." It's such a simple precaution that can avoid serious health consequences when you need to undergo medical treatment while not being able to correct the doctors' assumptions because of unconsciousness or some other reason.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Biological sex would be relevant, what is on one's birth certificate would not. The sex on someone's birth certificate does not always reflect their biological sex.

First: people can have their birth certificate changed. We had a whole discussion about whether that should be made a teeny tiny bit easier.
Second: in some cases the sex recorded on a person's birth certificate was incorrect from the start. It is quite likely a biological male born with some form of intersex condition to be assigned female.

Okay, yes, that's the part I was missing. Just a mental misstep on my part.

Obviously I presented an ridiculous hypothetical to point out that taking legal gender too seriously can lead to ridiculous outcomes, and that therefore it should not be seen in all circumstances as the sole determinant of what constitutes "sex" in discrimination cases. The "protected characteristic" of sex in UK anti-discrimination law probably refers to biological sex.

It would seem a whole lot more ridiculous if J. Yaniv didn't exist. And I'm sorry, but I cannot bring myself to refer to that person as a woman. Y'all will just have to settle for gender neutral pronouns on this one.

 

[Lithrael]

And as nice as it would be to pretend that they're only social norms... those norms are very closely tied to biology. Some of them are just pure BS (girls should be quite, friendly, cooperative, and not pushy). But a lot of them are tied to the biological fact of being able to get pregnant.

I agree, but, there’s a lot to unpack as to what you’re going to call social vs biological; the way you’re treated by others for getting/being pregnant/etc, vs what your body’s actually getting down to. I think what some posters are trying to say is that while a lot of these social norms are tied to those reproductive factors, a lot of them are still social norms and don’t have to be that way, and can be applied based purely on perception of gender. Impressing these norms on someone’s psyche does not require a fertility check, just the expectation of it.

On the other hand it looks like a lot of people don’t realize how much is straight up biological; it doesn’t matter how egalitarian people’s attitudes are when your problem is a life-threatening pregnancy. It still sucks and puts you in a horrible position even if you are getting 100% social support. Not to mention the multitude of mean things your reproductive anatomy can do to you.

I would agree that currently, there’s an amazing amount of socialization happening from pretty much day one. It always cracks me up when people get upset about a baby having an undisclosed gender. I need to know whether this baby is a boy or a girl! So that if it falls over I know if I should coo and help it up or say ‘you ok champ?’ Lol.

But, then, once a kid is old enough to be expected to be performing their social gender, it definitely starts to stick out if they’re not. And that affects their socialization going forward. I’ve heard it said that a trans woman growing up among young men sometimes isn’t socialized ‘young man’ so much as socialized ‘failure to be young man’.

 

[Paul2]

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.

This seems to me to say otherwise

. . . and I think the 'what biology leads to' is in reality much closer to, if not synonymous with, 'what gender leads to'

but I'm willing to accept that experiences are based in part on biology, we agree on that.

And I still don't get why we would call gender "gender" if it is synonymous with what biology leads to. Gender is different from biology, and because different societies have different expectations for the genders, it can't be that what gender leads to is synonymous with what biology leads to, as the biology is presumably constant among societies but gender definitions are not.

I might be missing what you're intending to say with making a distinction between biology and what biology leads to, and the same for gender.

 

[Paul2]

ETA: Another poster made a comment that makes me understand what you wrote differently, and I get your point. IOW, NM.

But if biology is not all that matters then it should be reasonable to assume that someone lacking that biology could have a sufficiently similar lived experience to be considered part of the group even without sharing the biology.



The gender role of both genders is probably rooted in reproductive biology. But if we agree that the gender role can still apply if your biology isn't functioning then we agree that the gender role is separate to the biology.

In other words, the defining factor in the lived experience of being a woman is not whether you have a uterus but whether the people you come into contact with treat you as if you have one.

There's a progression in those highlight parts that does not make the last highlight logically follow from the other two. Especially, why is the defining factor in a lived experience have nothing to do with biology?

 

[d4m10n]

In other words, the defining factor in the lived experience of being a woman is not whether you have a uterus but whether the people you come into contact with treat you as if you have one.

Yeah, this.

This seems like a reasonable definition but it would fall apart if ever anglophone society managed to cure itself of the sexism inherent in treating women differently than men.

ETA: Philosopher Kathleen Stock wrote an entire paper against the "social kind" approach to defining womanhood.

 

[Boudicca90]

Genuine question here. Why wouldn't they be able to still dress and behave however they are comfortable? Transvestites and Drag Queens already do this... why is there a difference for transgender people?

Because they aren't men who want to dress like women, they are women who aren't able to live as women. This is something you still don't seem to understand, or want to understand anyway. Transvestites and drag queens are not transgender, they don't tend to have a problem with their gender identity not matching their biological sex.

That one's just plain stupid though.

If I were in Boudicca's situation I'd have a note in my wallet next to my ID saying something like: "In case of medical treatment: I am a non-op transwoman, I have male physiology with the following surgeries having been performed..." It's such a simple precaution that can avoid serious health consequences when you need to undergo medical treatment while not being able to correct the doctors' assumptions because of unconsciousness or some other reason.

I wouldn't carry anything on me like that, period.

I have gone through a lot just to try to erase any reference to me having once been male, as transpeople tend to do with our assigned genders and deadnames. If something happens to me as a result of a situation like what was presented, where incorrect treatment is administered because I'm not able to tell them I'm trans, then I guess I'm screwed. I would not carry anything on me that outs me as transgender, and you wouldn't find many of us who would.

 

[Earthborn]

Y'all will just have to settle for gender neutral pronouns on this one.

That is fine. Just rejoice in the fact that now with gender neutral third person pronouns and with second-person plural pronouns the English language is finally complete.

 

[Lithrael]

Especially, why is the defining factor in a lived experience have nothing to do with biology?

Because if you say the defining factor is how people treat you and relate to you, that is based on assumptions about your biology, made because of your gender presentation, rather than your actual biology.

 

[Boudicca90]

Because if you say the defining factor is how people treat you and relate to you, that is based on assumptions about your biology, made because of your gender presentation, rather than your actual biology.

Exactly. Because I am seen as female by my appearance, I am seen as female in other areas, including biology. Even if it isn't accurate sometimes. Which is why I sometimes get asked questions about biological functions I don't have.