Cont: Trans Women are not Women 4

[Minoosh]

Ooh. Tell us more about male nursemaids.

Nursemaid is something different. Like an au pair, not a wet nurse.

 

[Tippit]

That escalated quickly . . . .

Do you dispute the facts?

 

[Tippit]

It was the Seneca falls convention of 1848, with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott, that started feminism in the U.S. They are the founders, not Sanger.

Fair enough.

Oh, and Sanger's racism and eugenicist has nothing to do with the value or appropriateness of feminism. Choosing Sanger to be the grandmother of feminism merely allows you to poison the well.

I don't think it's well poisoning to point out Sanger's crucial role in early feminism, with her emphasis on contraception/abortion/eugenics.

It's also telling that a large fraction of modern feminists support Islamic immigration into the US, despite their highly misogynistic and regressive treatment of women. It's almost as if they have a subversive leftist agenda that is undermining western culture and that supersedes the well being of women. Hypocritical to say the least. I suppose there are many feminists who don't apologize for Muslim misogyny as well.

 

[dann]

It's also telling that a large fraction of modern feminists support Islamic immigration into the US, despite their highly misogynistic and regressive treatment of women.

It's the argument that xenophobes always have against immigration from Islamic countries even though what logically follows from that idea is that you should allow more women from Islamic countries to immigrate into the USA. You seem to want them to stay where they are - despite the "highly misogynistic and regressive treatment of women" where they are now.
What an enabler! You just pretend to care for women exposed to this treatment.

 

[theprestige]

Nursemaid is something different. Like an au pair, not a wet nurse.

It takes some precision marksmanship to miss the point so completely. I commend your dodging skills. But please, tell us more about male wet nurses.

 

[Paul2]

Fair enough.

Thank you, I appreciate anyone's willingness to accept correction, I hope I will do the same when required.

I don't think it's well poisoning to point out Sanger's crucial role in early feminism, with her emphasis on contraception/abortion/eugenics.

Sanger's eugenics background has very little to do with feminism beyond Sanger. It's peculiar to her, at least among the founders and main, leading figures in feminism.

 

[Darat]

Let's take that question a step further. Suppose you could genetically test the fetus for this hypothetical gene. Given that life is harder for trans people, would it be ethical for parents to abort a fetus because it had that gene?

You'd need to describe the ethical framework you are invoking before someone can give a meaningful response to your question.

 

[theprestige]

You'd need to describe the ethical framework you are invoking before someone can give a meaningful response to your question.

Or people could describe their own ethical framework and the answer it leads them to. Zig's not asking if he thinks it's ethical. He's asking if you think it's ethical. You only need to know your own ethical framework to answer that question.

 

[Darat]

Or people could describe their own ethical framework and the answer it leads them to. Zig's not asking if he thinks it's ethical. He's asking if you think it's ethical. You only need to know your own ethical framework to answer that question.

Or Zig could have explained the ethical framework he was invoking when he asked the question.

 

[Tippit]

It's the argument that xenophobes always have against immigration from Islamic countries even though what logically follows from that idea is that you should allow more women from Islamic countries to immigrate into the USA. You seem to want them to stay where they are - despite the "highly misogynistic and regressive treatment of women" where they are now.
What an enabler! You just pretend to care for women exposed to this treatment.

Does that include Muslim transwomen?

I'm not xenophobic, I'm anti-illegal immigration, and pro merit-based legal immigration. I want to preserve what is (mostly) white European "western" culture, just as the Chinese Communists want to preserve their Han Chinese culture. As for what constitutes merit, I would, at the very least, disqualify anyone from cultures/countries that tend to want to destroy western culture, and the west. For instance, many female Muslim US immigrants continue to wear hijabs, thus promulgating the misogynistic cultures in which they were raised.

My stance on immigration doesn't mean that I don't care about Muslim women, it means that I care about western culture (and western women, specifically) more than I do Muslim women. I hope that Muslim culture evolves to become less misogynistic, and indeed less misanthropic, but I also hope western culture evolves to become less pathologically tolerant than it currently is as well.

 

[Tippit]

Sanger's eugenics background has very little to do with feminism beyond Sanger. It's peculiar to her, at least among the founders and main, leading figures in feminism.

We can agree to disagree. I think that contraception, abortion, and women's "reproductive rights" has a huge platform in modern feminism, directly as a result of Sanger.

Can we talk about what it means, if anything, that Gloria Steinem was a CIA agent?

 

[Earthborn]

Unfortunately, I think denial of the biology is real, and not a fringe position any more

I don't think the denial of biology is real or anything other than a fringe position. I think the reason you might think it is real is that you fail to understand the arguments trans-activists are trying to make.

- e.g. the prominent ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio saying: "biological sex" was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people.

Here is a tweet by Chase Strangio clarifying that it isn't about denying biology, but about using "biological sex" as a term in political and legal discourse.

(snip) ... but it seems to me to be an intensifying pattern to claim that biological sex is fuzzy/can be changed/unimportant

I think it is important to distinguish between "biological sex" at a species level and what "biological sex" an individual person is. What sex a person is can be a bit fuzzy in the case of intersex individuals; most can be classified as biologically male or female but it is still important to acknowledge that they may have some characteristics more typical of the other sex. Trans individuals prove that some characteristics of a person's biological sex can be changed to some degree. And I think it is pretty obvious that society tends to treat a person's biological sex as way more important than strictly necessary.

(see the dubious phrase: sex ‘assigned’ at birth).

The phrase "sex assigned at birth" originates from intersex activists to point out that some individuals are genetically one sex but have been registered as the other sex at birth, or even surgically altered as a baby to more resemble the opposite sex.

 

[Paul2]

We can agree to disagree. I think that contraception, abortion, and women's "reproductive rights" has a huge platform in modern feminism, directly as a result of Sanger.

Can we talk about what it means, if anything, that Gloria Steinem was a CIA agent?

I completely agree that all those things you mention were significantly influenced by Sanger. But eugenics had little influence on those things as aspects of feminism beyond Sanger. Sanger's eugenics had little influence on feminism even if Sanger did.

You're free to expand on Steinem's CIA connection.

 

[Louden Wilde]

[Here is a tweet by Chase Strangio clarifying that it isn't about denying biology, but about using "biological sex" as a term in political and legal discourse. .

This tweet suggests to me that he doesn't understand sex in the larger sense, is in denial, or is being disingenuous for rhetorical purposes.

I think it is important to distinguish between "biological sex" at a species level and what "biological sex" an individual person is. What sex a person is can be a bit fuzzy in the case of intersex individuals And I think it is pretty obvious that society tends to treat a person's biological sex as way more important than strictly necessary.

I disagree that the sex of people with DSDs is fuzzy. If these folks are fertile it is because they produce either oocytes or sperm. Even when sub-fertile/infertile it is typically clear that the cause is a malfunction of female or male development. We know a number of the mutations responsible (which notably often affect other characteristics).

There are incredibly rare cases where what gonad/gamete type the individual might have made is unclear, both these people are not relevant to a definition of sex (since they are not going to reproduce, which is the function of sex).

Suppose you discover a new species of rodent on a island. Reproduction appears to function as in other mammals. To understand the genetics of some traits, you breed them, carefully assessing the sex of each individual. After examining many thousands, you find an animal that has no apparent secondary characteristics or gonads.

You sequence the animals genome, and find a clearly pathogenic mutation in a gene known to be essential for primordial germ cells (the precursors of both oocytes and sperm) and gonads to develop. After several more years, you find another animal with a similar phenotype and similar mutation. Do you write a paper suggesting that this species has >2 sexes?

Note: I very much agree with the latter - that society treats our sex as far more important than is necessary - I favor working against sex (& gender) based stereotypes. But IMO by denying that sex/sex roles are a product of evolution or saying TWAW (without a new definition of woman or agreement of those affected) does not help this cause. As noted in prior posts, I think the data suggests that girls and women have been discriminated against on the basis of their sex.

The phrase "sex assigned at birth" originates from intersex activists to point out that some individuals are genetically one sex but have been registered as the other sex at birth, or even surgically altered as a baby to more resemble the opposite sex.

Yes, working in clinical genetics and going over CAH - the most common DSD ('intersex' is a misnomer) - genetics nearly every day, I'm aware. It's a poor word choice - it's an observation, "assignment" makes it sound random. The observation of genitals is a good proxy in the vast majority of cases - there were/are unfortunate decisions made for some people with DSDs. But I see no evidence that DSDs have anything to do with trans-people.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Or people could describe their own ethical framework and the answer it leads them to. Zig's not asking if he thinks it's ethical. He's asking if you think it's ethical. You only need to know your own ethical framework to answer that question.

Here's what I think is a likely one. Say 10 years from a now a variant is discovered that predisposes towards being trans (we know it won't be 100% from the MZ twin studies to date). A couple is undergoing IVF, with the resulting embryos subjected to preimplantation genetic diagnosis. The parents have asked for a comprehensive list of traits for each of the 6 embryos tested. They decide against implanting any of the 4 embryos that have the 'trans gene'. Does that make them transphobic? What if the other 2 embryos have a higher than average chance of early middle-aged coronary artery disease, whereas the two potentially trans-embryos do not? What if the alternatives are at risk for early onset dementia?

There are going to be some interesting conversations....

 

[Ziggurat]

You'd need to describe the ethical framework you are invoking before someone can give a meaningful response to your question.

That makes no sense. Anyone choosing to answer can supply their own moral framework, they don't need to use mine. That's rather the point of the question: I want to know what other people think about it.

One of the reasons I think the question is interesting is that in some cases the results will not follow naively expected divides. For example, a deeply conservative religious person who thinks a fetus is entitled to full human rights from the moment of conception would defend the life of the trans fetus, but an atheist who thinks abortion is acceptable for any reason before birth because it's the woman's body would be OK with killing the trans infant.

So, can YOU answer the question? Use your own moral framework, you don't need mine.

 

[Minoosh]

I should have said "I don't think that society is better off as a result of feminism". I believe that feminism is largely an ideology perpetrated by super-rich elites to subjugate men by enlisting women in their "emancipation" from their "oppressors", using the full power of the totalitarian state. Gloria Steinem, the mother of modern feminism, was a CIA agent. Margaret Sanger, perhaps the grandmother of feminism, was a racist eugenicist.

I'm a liberty-minded conspiracy theorist and a male chauvinist, not a libertarian, and certainly not a Libertarian. While I sympathize with having smaller, more accountable government (so as to minimize the coercive power of the conspirators), the Libertarian party is not viable given the plurality voting system, so I view it as mostly a joke. I do value traditional gender roles, but I also value individual freedom. I think the most brilliant women should be (and already are) free to reach their goals, I simply oppose feminism that seeks to use the coercive power of the state to subjugate men. I similarly view transgender as another method to undermine the traditional nuclear family, and pave the way for state paternalism, which makes me an unlikely ally of some feminists.

There is definitely more freedom for individuals, and for women specifically. I think it is possible that feminism has gone too far. For instance, government subsidies of female higher education has left males behind, for the first time in history. This is a problem.

As a conspiracy theorist with an emphasis on finance, I know that there are economic reasons which have largely forced women into the work place, which has necessitated feminist work place reforms. My general philosophy is that people should be free to do mostly what they want unless they're causing harm, and I generally oppose advocacy groups trying to use state power to force others to submit to their agenda. Whether it's feminists, transgenders, or men's right's activists.

This all strikes me as a depressingly rigid, top-down way of looking at how human societies organize themselves, but maybe it's necessary for you. I could take issue with your individual statements - like "Gloria Steinem was a CIA agent," as if that tells us anything useful - or your assumption that more women than men in undergraduate programs is a problem any more than the reverse. But I suspect your assumptions are too baked-in to effectively counter. As far as your anxieties about educating women, here's a counterpoint from "The Economist":

Getting to know the Sun
Joan Feynman died on July 22nd
The astrophysicist who studied auroras and prevailed against prejudice was 93

In the dusty Spanish town of Tordesillas in 1494, Spain and Portugal divided the unclaimed world between them. The moment is famous. Less well known is that around 1963, she at Columbia, he at Caltech, Joan Feynman and her brother Richard divvied up the universe. She took auroras, the Northern and Southern Lights that shimmer through the night sky in the highest latitudes. He, nine years older and fast becoming a world star in physics, took all the rest, which was fine with her.

The arrangement was serious. When, many years later, Richard was asked to look into auroras, he said he would have to ask Joan’s permission. She said no. They were hers, and besides, he had started the fascination. One night when she was small he dragged her out of bed, made her get dressed and took her to the golf course in Far Rockaway, near their house. Auroras did not normally come down to lower latitudes, but here was one. As she stared at a sky that was dancing with red, gold and green lights, he told her that no one knew how they happened, which was true back then. The mystery, with the lights, lodged in her head for good.

I wish I could find a link to the whole article, but I can't. But the gist is, everyone tried hard to dissuade her from pursuing science, except her brother. She also nurtured kids, but not every woman can manage both of these jobs nor does every woman want to. I grew up in a historically anomalous environment where it was possible for a woman to avoid motherhood. It's also possible for men to become something other than farm workers. Your world-view IMO predisposes you to consider this a negative.

Was humanity better off without choices? Some people think even agriculture was a disaster for humanity, and the species would have been better off as hunter-gatherers. But as a species, we seem doomed to organize and innovate. I feel like you are missing the potential for tradeoffs that ultimately give individual people choices. Some people enshrine the concept of human choice, and I can't tell if you're one of them. But tradeoffs between individual and collective rights are what has made civilization and science possible. Other animals couldn't manage it; they are largely interchangeable biological units dedicated to propagating their species. The concept of choice doesn't even exist.

I'm not sure humans beings actually have choice - we may be similarly living out a biological strategy, but one that is far more complex than what we associate with other animals. Every stage in human development, from feudalism to modern industrial China or Western-style Enlightenment values, could have arisen from biological imperatives.

Your belief in an elite corps of international bankers that call the shots for the other 99 percent of humans, or whatever ratio you posit, may work for you. It may even be correct. But I don't know how anyone squares that with the belief that individual free choice can be a force for good. I don't see how that could work, if the deck is as stacked as you make out. How would it happen?

 

[The Atheist]

So, can YOU answer the question? Use your own moral framework, you don't need mine.

I'll gladly answer.

I don't hold with abortion up to birth - I'd draw the line at viable birth not requiring intervention for all abortions, and arbitrarily make it 28 weeks. It would become individual parents' choices up to that date.

Personally, I wouldn't seek to terminate on those grounds, but that's because I know the kid would be born into a loving house where they would have support.

I can tell you for free that with all four of my children, the decision had been made to terminate of defects were found at the ultrasound.

 

[Minoosh]

It takes some precision marksmanship to miss the point so completely. I commend your dodging skills. But please, tell us more about male wet nurses.

You just used that line like literally one page ago.

ETA: I did not say that men are as well-suited to becoming wet nurses as women, and you know that.

 

[Minoosh]

I can tell you for free that with all four of my children, the decision had been made to terminate of defects were found at the ultrasound.

Otherwise there's far less use for an ultrasound, or amniocentesis. I suppose in some cases it might provide information vital for the life of the mother, but if abortion for any reason is unacceptable I don't see why that would make a difference.