Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)

[The Atheist]

I don't consent to getting old. Who do I complain to?

Nobody - that one's been tried and failed.

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/08/665592537/69-year-old-dutch-man-seeks-to-change-his-legal-age-to-49

You'll just have to keep lying.

 

[Aber]

And in UK news; gender is not fixed

Eddie Izzard to use the pronouns 'she' and 'her'
Stonewall praises comedian for her bravery after announcement on Sky Arts show

Eddie Izzard has adopted the pronouns “she” and “her”, saying she wants “to be based in girl mode from now on”.

The actor and comedian made the announcement during an appearance on the Sky Arts series Portrait Artist Of The Year last week in which she described herself as gender-fluid, prompting the LGBT charity Stonewall to praise her for her bravery.

Izzard said it was the first time she had asked to be referred to with exclusively she/her pronouns while making a television programme and “it feels great”, adding: “One life, live it well.”

Izzard, 58, has previously spoken about her gender-fluid identity and having modes. Earlier in her career she identified as a transvestite, saying she felt like “a complete boy plus half a girl” and referring to herself as “a lesbian trapped in a man’s body”.

In 2017, she told the Hollywood Reporter: “I am essentially transgender. I have boy mode and girl mode. I do feel I have boy genetics and girl genetics.”

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/dec/21/eddie-izzard-to-use-female-pronouns-she-and-her

 

[cullennz]

And in UK news; gender is not fixed



https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2020/dec/21/eddie-izzard-to-use-female-pronouns-she-and-her

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

 

[Ron Obvious]

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

 

[LondonJohn]

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

As a general observation, I wonder if this is borne perhaps of some kind of "logic" along the lines of:

1) I, an intelligent and well-informed person, am a male and I'm also (obviously, as far as I'm concerned) a man;

2) It's obvious (to me) that all males are men - it would be unthinkable (to me) that someone like me (a male) could rationally identify as anything other than a man;

therefore

3) any intelligent, well-informed man who announces an intention to identify as a woman (or as anything other than a man) may well be doing so as some sort of game or trick. This explanation makes it easier for me to accept and get my head round the situation - after all, how can any intelligent, well-informed male sincerely believe his gender identity to be anything other than a man. Like me.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

Oh yes, me too.



Not.

 

[LondonJohn]

Hopefully someone will have a go this time.





Bearing in mind this is a skeptic forum, useful answer(s) should be observable and demonstrable in order to convince those who remain on the fence.

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.


And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".



(It's perhaps useful and instructive that the current DSM fully understands and recognises gender identity - as a separate construct from biological sex - in these sorts of terms. But I'm always happy to help with information for those who are too lazy or too blinkered to go and look for the information themselves )

 

[LondonJohn]

Holy cow, they already do. They already have.

FFS, stop pretending like it doesn't exist! We all get that you don't give a crap about the safety of females. Fine, but own your views man! Don't try to gaslight us with this rhetoric.

Well maybe it would advance the dialogue here if you were able to provide reliable evidence to show that they already do.

Oh, and you've created a tasty strawman of your own with your incorrect and somewhat nasty claim that "I don't give a crap about the safety of females".

(And as I said already: cismen can already walk straight into women's changing rooms in places such as sports centres. That's a problem which is present regardless of the transgender issue. You need to provide evidence that the risks to females would rise if transwomen are allowed to use women's changing rooms)

 

[Meadmaker]

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.


And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

It seems to me that you are saying that someone who doesn't identify with the expectations, etc isn't a woman.

That seems problematic to me, and I'm pretty sure even more problematic to a lot of women.

 

[Meadmaker]

Carrying the thought from the previous post a little farther. Perhaps, my earlier interpretation is not correct. The question was what the two groups, women and transwomen, had in common. The answer was identification as women, and further clarified that in practice that meant the conformance to societal expectations of women. However, perhaps that last part only applied to biological males who wish to be identified as women.

So, all biological females have the option to identify as women. They don't have to conform to societal expectations of women. Those females who conform to societal expectations of men, could identify as men. A biolgical male who wishes to identify as female has to conform to the personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to women.


As an aside, one of the societal expectations of men is that they open jars for women. This could be problematic if that's a criteria for being a trans-man.

 

[Meadmaker]

One more thought. I noticed in my own post that I mixed up "identify as" with "be identified as".

I would think that the conformance to societal expectations would really only be necessary for the "be identified as" aspect. In other words, someone can identify with whatever they want, but in order for other people to recognize that identification, the person wishing to be identified in a certain way has to conform to societal expectations.

 

[Myriad]

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

As a general observation, I wonder if this is borne perhaps of some kind of "logic" along the lines of:

1) I, an intelligent and well-informed person, am a male and I'm also (obviously, as far as I'm concerned) a man;

2) It's obvious (to me) that all males are men - it would be unthinkable (to me) that someone like me (a male) could rationally identify as anything other than a man;

therefore

3) any intelligent, well-informed man who announces an intention to identify as a woman (or as anything other than a man) may well be doing so as some sort of game or trick. This explanation makes it easier for me to accept and get my head round the situation - after all, how can any intelligent, well-informed male sincerely believe his gender identity to be anything other than a man. Like me.

In this particular case, the logic is more like:

1) Celebrities often do dramatic things aligning with current trends in order to garner attention and praise;

2) Eddie Izzard is a celebrity;

3) Declaring unconventional gender identity and new pronoun preferences is a dramatic thing aligning with current trends;

4) Eddie Izzard has in fact garnered attention and praise by so doing;

therefore

5) Eddie Izzard was likely motivated by a desire for attention and praise to do said thing.


Likewise, I'm quite capable of doubting whether the latest highly-hyped celebrity marriage will last, without calling into question the existence of lasting marriages.

 

[gnome]

One more thought. I noticed in my own post that I mixed up "identify as" with "be identified as".

I would think that the conformance to societal expectations would really only be necessary for the "be identified as" aspect. In other words, someone can identify with whatever they want, but in order for other people to recognize that identification, the person wishing to be identified in a certain way has to conform to societal expectations.

Possibly a useful term to refer to that is to discuss how someone "presents". That's a description of behavior rather than self-identification.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Oh yes, me too.



Not.

Maybe I should have added that I've seen just about all his stuff and my jumping to that conclusion was based on what he's shared about himself before.

 

[Aber]

As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

Except that was NOT what Eddie Izzard was saying.

“I am essentially transgender. I have boy mode and girl mode. I do feel I have boy genetics and girl genetics.”

 

[Emily's Cat]

Quite right. Your posts on this thread and its progenitors have been very informative. While I wouldn't deny that a bit of misandry may appear occasionally, in general your logic is unassailable.

I try not to let my irritation get out of hand. I don't think I'm actually misandrist, but I am definitely human, so... sorry. I rather fancy men, and I am well aware that there are several social institutions that disadvantage males in some ways too.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sorry but this is going to sound very name drop.

I have meet Eddie a few times in my past and think he might be taking the ****

I've never met him, but I was almost completely sure that that's what he was doing right away.

I don't know. It's entirely possible (comedian, so yeah). It does seem like an odd shift for someone who was fairly confident and clear that transvestites are males who like female clothing and makeup, and that most transvestites fancy girls.

Because we all know one of the main factors of war is the element of surprise. And what could be more surprising than the First Battalion Transvestite Brigade? Airborne Wing.

The airborne wing parachuting into dangerous areas with fantastic make-up and a fantastic gun. The opposing force is going, "******* hell, look at these guys. "Look at that."

"They've got guns! Jesus, where's my gun? Ah, bugger. I was so surprised."

I'm an action transvestite really, so it's running, jumping, climbing trees... putting on make-up when you're up there!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Aaaaaand........ therein lies one of the (many) problems in the way cisgender people assess trans-identity: holding the opinion that transgender people (especially intelligent and well-informed ones) might well be playing some sort of bizarre game. As opposed to holding real, valid, lived, totally sincere beliefs that they do not identify as the gender which was assigned to them on the basis of their biological sex.

So Zuby is serious then?

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be precise: what they have in common is that they identify as women.

Females don't "identify as women". We ARE women. I no more "identify as a woman" than I "identify as brunette."

And what that means in practice is that they identify with the kinds of expectations, attitudes, roles and other personality/super-ego manifestations which society ascribes to "woman".

I call ******** on this. Your explanation is that transwomen "identify with" the restrictive, demeaning stereotypes that society places on females, and which act as barriers to women.

By your logic, tomboys aren't women. Gals who dislike pink and hate makeup aren't women. Or at least, they're "less of a woman" than a transwoman is, because the transwoman "identifies with" the pretty, pink, docile, polite, subservient, caring, crapola role that society forces on females without their goddamned consent!

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

If a white man identifies with the expectation of being aggressive, violent, criminal, physically strong, under-educated, and inferior... would you say that that white man's claim to identify as a black man is valid and real and should be respected?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well maybe it would advance the dialogue here if you were able to provide reliable evidence to show that they already do.

Already have done, you ignored it and dismissed it. Like you do with ANYTHING that demonstrates male predators taking advantage of females due to loopholes, and transwomen displaying the same pattern of male violence as natal males.

I've provided this evidence multiple times. Each time you either dismiss it out of hand as "transphobic propaganda" which doesn't address the problem, or you just ignore it and stop responding to me for a few pages as if that makes it not exist.