Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Just out of curiosity have you noticed any significant shifts in political or philosophical stance from anyone so far?
Click to expand...

Not a huge amount, although your view has shifted notably away from a default of "support transgender" people. There've been a few others that shifted, although it's hard to gauge because several of them weren't frequent posters in here.

Although, I did just finish reading Stout's peak trans moment.
 
Distracted1 said:
How does that work in reverse, I wonder.
In particular, I have been a bit puzzled by the demonization of telling a woman to smile.

Other things in popular discussion are more obviously ignorant. But I can't imagine being upset if told to smile (not commanded to smile, just a "smile, It's Friday" kind of thing)
Click to expand...

You're so much prettier when you smile.
 
:D Volume 2

I find so many of Meadmaker's posts to be entertaining and well written. I enjoyed this one in particular, especially this line:

Meadmaker said:
One aspect of the debate really stood out for me, and it's related to the "definition" discussion. You see, there's a group of people that, as a father, I'm interested in. What I mean is that they are of concern to me. I don't know exactly what to call these people these days. Since we're talking about Robotics here, I'll describe this group in mathematical terms. I am referring to:

The set of all teenagers who could make my daughter pregnant.
Click to expand...

And then, true to form, we get Archie's response with is really very :boggled:

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Roboramma said:
Meadmaker, for instance, mentioned the issue that the transgirl can potentially get the other girls pregnant. That seems to be a real and at least potentially valid concern.
Click to expand...

It's a cherry-picked concern though from a list of possible things that could occur. One of the girls might be a violent bully who could hospitalise your daughter, one of them might be carrying a transmissable disease that could affect your daughters health. There are a million and one 'real and at least potentially valid' concerns that could have been latched onto, so what makes this one special?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some of the phrasing is wonderful:
Lithrael said:
...the risk of someone accidentally getting full of baby is a special risk worth cutting out a lot of opportunities...
Click to expand...

And the description of teenagers is awesome:
Lithrael said:
Oh, yeah, I just meant the accommodations part. Still, that means a lot to some people sometimes. But yeah if it was me I would not sweat it. So I am not sure how far to carry my argument there.

Also I would like to un-recommend getting any teenagers their own room by themselves. In my experience that is a serious spike in the shenanigans of all kinds risk department. When the little gremlins are corralled in a group, the worst ones can’t self-select together and cover each other’s butts. If you get a shenanigan-inclined one a solo room it will invite its most easily corrupted friend/s in and that couch will have caught fire completely on its own.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Earthborn said:
Of course it is a propagandistic slogan. It is a political statement, not a statement of biological fact. It is not meaningless though. The people who say it mean they accept transwomen in their adopted gender role, that transwomen have a right to refer to themselves as women and should be treated as women as much as practicable.
Click to expand...



Yes, this.
 
Some of the links provided in earlier volumes are very interesting, and worth a revisit. Like this one provided by Rolfe:

culturallyboundgender
The sooner trans* people acknowledge that yes, creepy autogynephiles and people who idealize femininity in ultimately patriarchal ways are in their movement, the sooner it will be easier for radical feminists and trans activists to have a reasonable conversation about the complex conflicts involved in letting trans* women into women’s spaces. Pretending that these people do not exist does a disservice to the women who know that they have been economically, emotionally, socially or physically coerced into helping men live out their fantasy lives as women.
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine, because that closing sentence really resonates.
 
I just read this interesting article by Prof. Michael Bailey on 'How to Ruin Sex Research' (also applicable to other areas of research).

How to ruin it

Advocate for Marginalized Groups

'To the extent that some members of a marginalized group require that plausible or even factual ideas not be discussed, they need therapy more than advocacy.'

Don’t Question People’s Identities and Narratives

'It is not possible for a scientist to provide good evidence regarding the accuracy of an identity or narrative without questioning it'.

Focus on Linguistic Sensitivity Rather than Efficient Communication

'Changes [in transgender terminology] occur not because of scientific discovery or scientific consensus. Rather, they usually occur because activists say terminology must change, in order to reduce offense'.

Follow the Example of Gender Studies

'....it is not surprising that few gender studies programs evince scientific approaches'.

Focus on Moral and Political Implications and “Sensitivity” of Scientific Presentations and Publications Rather Than on the Accuracy of Their Scientific Content

'Good research practices tend to lead to discovery and verification of true ideas. In contrast, there is no telling which direction good intentions will lead'.

Discourage Discussion of Controversial Ideas

'If people knew which ideas had merit and which did not even before the ideas had been thoroughly discussed and tested, then we would not need science'.

How to save it.

'Resist the trends and inclinations I have outlined above. Resistance is costly with respect to time and aggravation. Resistance may also be reputationally costly if one is falsely accused of any of a number of terrible-sounding things such as homophobia, transphobia, misogyny, or rape apology, among many other potential (and awful) accusations. But do not imagine that demands for ideological conformity will ever be satiated.'
 
Earthborn said:
Of course it is a propagandistic slogan. It is a political statement, not a statement of biological fact.
Click to expand...

This puzzled me. TWAW, fairly obviously, does not state a biological fact. I had taken it be an assertion of non-biological fact, apparently supporting the conclusion that trans women ought to be treated as if they were women.

Is it a premiss supporting that conclusion? Or is it the conclusion itself?
 
Butter! said:
Saying "smile" to anybody is rude, regardless of gender. Seriously, **** off, you have no idea what is going on with that person that may be causing them to scowl. It's so annoying.
Click to expand...


If they were actually concerned they would ask you if you were OK.
 
Earthborn said:
Of course it is a propagandistic slogan. It is a political statement, not a statement of biological fact. It is not meaningless though. The people who say it mean they accept transwomen in their adopted gender role, that transwomen have a right to refer to themselves as women and should be treated as women as much as practicable.
Click to expand...
We've seen some fairly sharp disagreements about the breadth of activities covered by that last phrase. Some people think that sports should be segregated by sex, others by gender, still others by hormone levels. Some think that it's okay to designate an all-female nude beach or bathing area, others think that would be transphobic.
 
Earthborn said:
It comes down to the whole distinction between "is" and "ought". A delusion is an idea that is false, when for example someone thinks they are something they are not. It is not a delusion for someone to think they ought to be something they are not. Transgender individuals tend to be fully aware they are not the sex they identify as, even if they use wording in which they claim it as their identity.
Click to expand...

Yep, I know I'm not biologically female (meaning XX, and with a female reproductive system), so there is no delusion there. But rather my gender identity ended up developing differently than my biological sex has told my brain to develop. And so I take steps to bring my body in line with my gender.

Earthborn said:
Of course it is a propagandistic slogan. It is a political statement, not a statement of biological fact. It is not meaningless though. The people who say it mean they accept transwomen in their adopted gender role, that transwomen have a right to refer to themselves as women and should be treated as women as much as practicable.
Click to expand...

Right. While I may not be biologically female, I am still female in regards to gender identity, and that is what makes me a woman. Biological sex is part of what guides our gender development normally, but not always, and it is only part of the equation along with individual psychology and interaction with society. Basically sex is in your genes, gender is in your brain. And gender is far more complex than sex.

Trans Women Are Women is a slogan, yes. But it also means that we are women just as much as cisgender women are, with some differences in biology. I am not a man who wants to be a woman, I am a woman as much as any other.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
While I may not be biologically female, I am still female in regards to gender identity, and that is what makes me a woman.
Click to expand...

Male/female denote sexes, what denotes gender is masculine/feminine. There is no "female in regards to gender identity" and, furthermore, a definition for such would run into exactly the same issues as when "woman in regards to gender identity" was attempted to be defined, ending up circularly. Though you are of course free to provide a definition for this "female in regards to gender identity" term.

Lastly, introducing a second meaning for the same term already being used in a discussion is just asking for equivocation. Indeed, that's exactly the reason why sources - which d4m10n already provided - on critical thinking suggest to do the exact opposite, namely to disambiguate terms rather than ambiguate them. This is easy to do with a simple system like appending a numbered postfix for the n-th meaning in which the term is used. Something like "I am not female (ie biologically) but I am female2 (ie undefined)" and consistently use the correct one when switching between meanings. Or, you know, just using the already disambiguated and existing terms masculine/feminine for gender.
 
Last edited:
Seems like your thread here would be a whole lot shorter if some definitions were provided.

Male/female
Man/woman
Masculine/feminine

Then there is not much to get contentious about except for someone posting that they prefer personalized custom definitions. Which can be plus or minus ignored as it makes communication impossible if you are going all Humpty Dumpty with meanings
 
Thermal said:
Seems like your thread here would be a whole lot shorter if some definitions were provided.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a worthy exercise, but all I can really say is how I tend to use the terms myself.

As I posted earlier, I try to restrict my use of female to mammals born with ova.

I've been trying to narrow my use of woman to the set of people whom I (1) perceive to be biologically female or (2) perceive to be making a good faith effort to be perceived as such.

As to feminine, I'm happy to go with the usual "attributes, behaviors, and roles generally associated with women" per the relevant wiki.
 
Last edited:
It's kind of scary to see old posts resurrected. Once in a while, I see something I wrote and I can't believe that I wrote it, or I have absolutely no memory of the conversation.

However, Emily's Cat did go back in the history and made reference to one post I had made, this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12883853#post12883853

Boudicca90,

You weren't participating in the thread at that time. I'm wondering if I can get your perspective on that post and the issues it raised.
 
Meadmaker said:
It's kind of scary to see old posts resurrected. Once in a while, I see something I wrote and I can't believe that I wrote it, or I have absolutely no memory of the conversation.

However, Emily's Cat did go back in the history and made reference to one post I had made, this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=12883853#post12883853

Boudicca90,

You weren't participating in the thread at that time. I'm wondering if I can get your perspective on that post and the issues it raised.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with it, since the assumption that the trans girl will have sex with the other girls just because she has a different physiology is wrong and is just an example of transmisogyny. The gay comparison is very accurate here, because as I have stated before, the same arguments were used against me and people like me in the military.

Back around the time Don't Ask Don't Tell was ending, other airmen in my squadron and elsewhere around base became much more openly vocal about how they felt about us gays openly sharing the dorms and the showers with them. There was one A1C who straight up told me he didn't want a gay airman sharing his dorm because he was afraid we would rape him (not me personally, I wasn't out to anybody.) And it wasn't the first or last time I've personally heard things like that.

Straight guys thinking we are a threat and that we are going to seduce them or rape them, just because we are gay. So yeah, I would have no problem with her sharing a room with cis girls.
 
Last edited:
Boudicca90 said:
I have no problem with it, since the assumption that the trans girl will have sex with the other girls just because she has a different physiology is wrong and is just an example of transmisogyny.
Click to expand...
AFAICT the assumption among the girls' parents was that the sort of penetrative sex which might well lead to pregnancy was possible now whereas before it was physically impossible. Seems to me they could reasonably require more intensive chaperoning now that the risks have changed.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom