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

[Upchurch]

With subsets, I would think trans women are a subset of males and trans men are a subset of females.

Because trans women are males and trans men are females.

I would think you’re wrong because of how prefixes work as modifiers and also how trans folks are referred to in daily interactions.

Time will tell which idea wins the process of linguistic natural selection. Or, I suppose, if neither do.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't buy for a second that it's just about terminology to a lot of / maybe most people who are vocal in this discussion.

You don't have the biggest social movement since gay rights over something no more really meaningful than "Is a zebra black with white stripes or white with black stripes?"

 

[Upchurch]

I don't buy for a second that it's just about terminology to a lot of / maybe most people who are vocal in this discussion.

You don't have the biggest social movement since gay rights over something no more really meaningful than "Is a zebra black with white stripes or white with black stripes?"

Of course not. This is really about one’s identity, what does one base their identity on, and the fear of losing one’s identity if someone can have a similar identity for different reasons. We see similar things when guy folks wanted to be able to marry and during the civil rights movement in the 60s (and, arguably, continually up to now).

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Identity" isn't the magic word to some that it is to others.

You can't just say "identity" and then refuse to ever explain it beyond that.

Again the people just going "When you say 'You identify as a woman' what does that mean?" (ETA: and who don't accept a contextless "Because I say so" as the answer) aren't being hateful, unreasonable, or crazy here.

 

[cullennz]

I would think you’re wrong because of how prefixes work as modifiers and also how trans folks are referred to in daily interactions.

Time will tell which idea wins the process of linguistic natural selection. Or, I suppose, if neither do.

I'm sorry, but basic human biology and physiology says otherwise.

Making up prefixes is not really up there is reality.

I could call myself a "angry birds woman" as I used to play it on my phone and embarrassingly quite like that girly movie Love Actually.

It doesn't mean I am an angry bird or a woman.

 

[Meadmaker]

More or less easier than argumentum ad antiquitatem?

Far be it from me to criticize anyone for intellectual laziness when applied to forum discussions. No one is under obligation to use up a whole lot of brain power responding to these arguments, but it seems like if you're going to take any effort at all to respond, you might as well respond to something actually in the thread.

No one in this thread is appealing to tradition. Theprestige is the only one who took up any effort to address my question. My answer would have been very similar, but not identical to his. There's nothing about tradition, nothing about the way we've always done things, nothing about the status quo. There's nothing in his statement, and very close to nothing in this thread, that could remotely be labeled an argument ad antiquitatem. He starts from a basic principle and observation of reality, and builds a position from it.

Doing so with this, or any other, controversial topic is a great way of actually exercising those highly vaunted critical thinking skills that we claim to admire in these parts.

But, it's not for everyone.

 

[Meadmaker]

The trans-girl I know is a girl in all the ways that matter to me and her classmates.

Does she take showers with them? Does she compete in athletic competitions?


That's meant as a serious question. In most situations, it doesn't matter if you are a girl or a boy. What I'm wondering is whether she participates in those situations where most people would say it does indeed matter.

For post-pubescent people, the difference in male and female athletic activity matters. In the course of athletic activity, when I grew up it was customary to see people naked while cleaning up afterwards. I'm curious if it's simply the case that she avoids any such activity, or if the younger generation just simply doesn't care.

Of course, I know that some classmates do care, which is why there have been protests when males demand access to girls' locker rooms, but I'm curious how this has affected someone you know personally, or if the subject just never comes up.

 

[theprestige]

Far be it from me to criticize anyone for intellectual laziness when applied to forum discussions. No one is under obligation to use up a whole lot of brain power responding to these arguments, but it seems like if you're going to take any effort at all to respond, you might as well respond to something actually in the thread.

No one in this thread is appealing to tradition. Theprestige is the only one who took up any effort to address my question. My answer would have been very similar, but not identical to his. There's nothing about tradition, nothing about the way we've always done things, nothing about the status quo. There's nothing in his statement, and very close to nothing in this thread, that could remotely be labeled an argument ad antiquitatem. He starts from a basic principle and observation of reality, and builds a position from it.

Doing so with this, or any other, controversial topic is a great way of actually exercising those highly vaunted critical thinking skills that we claim to admire in these parts.

But, it's not for everyone.

My argument coincides with tradition because it starts from a basic principle and an observation of reality. The social construct of gender is based on the fact of biological sex. So any prescription based on the fact of biological sex is going to look pretty similar to what society has actually evolved. I've mentioned evolution, so here's my Just So Story: gender roles evolved in a time when civilization was much more heavily dependent on manual labor.

 

[theprestige]

What does it matter if trans-women is a subset of man or woman?

It depends on who's asking, and in what context.

The trans-men I know from band are men in all the ways that matter to me and my fellow band mates. The trans-girl I know is a girl in all the ways that matter to me and her classmates.

Sounds good to me!

Now all we need to know is what are the ways it matters to you, and do those ways matter in other contexts?

I'd say that unless your band is running gender identity as a marketing gimmick, it really doesn't matter at all how your bandmates identify. As long as they show up to the gig, keep time, and stay in tune, does it really matter if they're a man, a woman, a cactus, or three dogs in a trench coat? Does it really matter if they're a cactus that identifies as three dogs in a trench coat?

But your band is not the only context in which the question arises. The discussion of trans identity in public policy neither begins nor ends with your feelings about your bandmates.

 

[Darat]

People are sheltered from their abusive partners by shelters.

Didn’t realise that you wanted to narrow it down to just shelters, presumably just shelters that help women escape from abusive partners/relationships and so on?

Even a restraining order only criminalizes the close approach of the abuser. It doesn't actually shelter their victim if the abuser decides to approach them anyway.

This is true fo any combination of genders or sexes however you want to define them.

If the law criminalized discrimination in shelter admission, it wouldn't prevent shelter administrators from discriminating anyway, but it could end up in them having to pay crippling fines, serve prison sentences, and lose their permit to operate a shelter. All the people they'd been sheltering would be left with a printout of their restraining order, to protect themselves with.

I’m now struggling to understand this apparent sidebar we are discussing. This came about because I responded to your query about an abuser gaining access to their victim by self identifying as a transwomen. How is that at all relevant in regards to shelters? Shelters usually have good security and will not allow anyone to enter regardless of sex/gender. Lesbian relationships are not free from abuse so most shelters will already deal with female victims of female abusers and have processes in place to deal with it. They certainly will not let a known abuser to enter regardless of sex/gender.

 

[Darat]

I don't buy for a second that it's just about terminology to a lot of / maybe most people who are vocal in this discussion.

You don't have the biggest social movement since gay rights over something no more really meaningful than "Is a zebra black with white stripes or white with black stripes?"

It is at the tail end of that social movement not distinct from it. What you have is quite a few campaigners that are well versed in making a noise making sure this disappear from popular discussion.

What is different with this part of the movement is that different groups who have traditionally found themselves on the same side find themselves at odds. And as we all know nothing is as bitter or full of recriminations as arguments with your own family.

 

[theprestige]

Since we're both struggling to understand this sidebar, I move we drop it.

 

[d4m10n]

"Identity" isn't the magic word to some that it is to others.

The more I think upon this, the weirder it gets.

Whenever someone asks me to identify myself, I typically provide them with a set of identifiers which are in some sense objectively verifiable, e.g. I'm the person who has the face in this state-issued photo i.d. card, I'm the person associated with this federally issued social security card, I'm the person born in this particular hospital on this particular day, to that specific woman, I'm the person legally adopted by this specific man on this specific day as this specific county courthouse, I'm the person who was married to this one specific person on this specific day, I'm the person who was discharged from this specific branch of the U.S. military on this specific day, etc. and so forth. Typically there are pieces of paper and signatures to attest to each of these things, any of which helps to establish my identity.

If you were to ask, "Why do you identify as married?" I could show you the certificate of marriage. If you were to ask, "Why do you identify as a veteran?" I could show you my DD Form 214. If you were to ask "Why do you identify as Puerto Rican?" I could show you my father's birth certificate.

Not all identities are demonstrable on paper or even easily documented, though. If you were to ask, "Why do you identify as atheist?" all I could do is point out that gods are obviously made up, and if you were to ask "Why do you identify as a skeptic?" all I could do is point to the various harms caused by those to prey on credulity. If you were to ask "Why do you identify as a Connie Willis fanboy?" all I could do is gush about her novels.

So I guess some identities are about one's life experiences, demonstrable characteristics, legal forms, etc. and other forms of identity are about one's subjective state of mind. I suppose gender can be either, or both?

 

[JoeMorgue]

As always whenever that word gets dropped into a discussion, "subjective" does not mean meaningless, arbitrary, and formless.

Sure you are correct when I say that I'm an atheist or a skeptic it's not the exact same as saying I'm a veteran or 5'9" or 0+ Blood Type.

But I can still describe and explain what I mean when I say I'm an atheist or a skeptic. I don't just go "I'm an atheist because I say so because that's what I identify as."

And if I believed in God but "identified" as an atheist I wouldn't blame other people for expecting me to clarify what definition I was using.

 

[theprestige]

Most importantly, subjective identities aren't binding on anyone else. Honestly I think most trans-identity conversations should go something like this:

"I think of myself as a woman."

"Well, I don't, but I'll try not to be a dick about it."

 

[Paul2]

Most importantly, subjective identities aren't binding on anyone else. Honestly I think most trans-identity conversations should go something like this:

"I think of myself as a woman."

"Well, I don't, but I'll try not to be a dick about it."

My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not a choice, and by framing it in terms of “I think of myself . . .” you make it sound that way. Did you mean it like that?

 

[theprestige]

My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not a choice, and by framing it in terms of “I think of myself . . .” you make it sound that way. Did you mean it like that?

Volunary or not is irrelevant to my formulation.

That said, I think there's been a lot of equivocation from the trans-activists in this thread about what transsexuality is, whether dysphoria is part of it, etc.

If it's not a choice, then all the more reason to not be a dick about it. But still not sufficient reason to make it binding on anyone else, or change public policy.

Also, if it's not a choice, then I'd like to see any public policy accommodations be backed by actual diagnosis and recommendations from medical experts about what is actually helpful for treating/mitigating the condition.

 

[Paul2]

Volunary or not is irrelevant to my formulation.

Yeah, I get that. I was making an ancillary point.

That said, I think there's been a lot of equivocation from the trans-activists in this thread about what transsexuality is, whether dysphoria is part of it, etc.

If it's not a choice, then all the more reason to not be a dick about it. But still not sufficient reason to make it binding on anyone else, or change public policy.

Also, if it's not a choice, then I'd like to see any public policy accommodations be backed by actual diagnosis and recommendations from medical experts about what is actually helpful for treating/mitigating the condition.

Aside from that, do you think gender dysphoria exists, and it isn’t a choice?

 

[Darat]

Most importantly, subjective identities aren't binding on anyone else. Honestly I think most trans-identity conversations should go something like this:

"I think of myself as a woman."

"Well, I don't, but I'll try not to be a dick about it."

That’s what some trans folk say but not all. In this thread we’ve read Boudicca frame it as “I am a woman” and I’ve listened to and read many others that say that.

And that’s got me trying to think of it from someone like our member Boudicca’s perspective.

(And I think this also touches on part of what JoeM says above.)

I can say “I am a man*” and have that accepted based on nothing at all but me saying it, I don’t have to prove that to anyone, I don’t have to negotiate with people to agree to call me he or sir or Mister. Indeed if someone called me “she” people would understand that I could find that upsetting or why I would not like to be called she.

No one expects me to do anything else then simply assert “I am a man”.

I suspect from Boudicca’s viewpoint she is thinking “Why do I have to do something more/other when I say “I am a woman” than you do when you say “I am a man””?

And - and this where I think it pulls in JoeM queries regarding “identifying” - I can’t tell you how it feels to be a man, I have no way of knowing if my “inner” experience of being a man is anything like yours or JoeM’s and no one expects me to have to be able to articulate and describe what that experience is before I say “I am a man” and for you accept it.

All of that is what I consider the “gender” part of this discussion. There is of course the biological side - my genetic makeup - but no one asks me to dive into that when I say to them “I am Mr Darat”.





______
*“I am a man” - is of course a socially mediated statement, I have indeed often been told - especially when younger - in anything but a polite or friendly manner that I am not a man and never could be a man because I am a homosexual. So I do have some understanding of what it is to be “misgendered” by society and it really is an unpleasant experience.

 

[Sherkeu]

My understanding is that gender dysphoria is not a choice, and by framing it in terms of “I think of myself . . .” you make it sound that way. Did you mean it like that?

There are other human conditions that are not a choice and they are deeply held beliefs about a persons internal identity.

The trans-abled people who truly feel they should be disabled and that part of their body is 'foreign' and should be cut off is one example (or they should be blind or deaf). They often act "as if" in wheelchairs, crutches, braces, earplugs etc... to cope with it. Or they might cause self harm so the offending part can be removed.

I wonder (if properly diagnosed) that we should give them disabled parking placards or let them participate in the special/Paralympics? That would match with their diagnosis and help them integrate, wouldn't it? Might be better than them trying to find someone to cut off a healthy leg. (Though anecdotally, surgery is often the thing that actually works...therapy does not)

Should we let them self-ID? What policy would work for them?