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

[theprestige]

Thank you, I just wanted to be clear on that.

No, you wanted me to be clear on that, for some reason. Even though it wasn't actually relevant to my point.

 

[Darat]

Well, the evidence shows that in at least some cases, it is 100% choice, otherwise https://quillette.com/2020/01/02/th...ioners-are-growing-we-need-to-understand-why/.



Bravo!

I've mentioned that similarity on several occasions. I think the two are highly analogous.

There may indeed be some analogous symptoms of different disorders and the like, but it doesn’t mean we can’t have different approaches to different disorders even if they have analogous symptoms.

 

[Darat]

Your visual appearance is a whole collection of cues.

The point is that nobody is accepting your "I'm a man" based on nothing at all but you saying it. I bet that almost all the time, it's the other way around: You don't have to say "I'm a man" because people have already figured it out.

Then your point is simply about whether someone can visually “pass” or not. Which is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Darat]

My "identify" as a man and my "experience" as a man are not distinct, they are the same thing.

I'm not a man because I "identify" as one. I just am one.

We're arguing souls and qualia at this point. Meaningless.

It is you that is arguing “souls and qualia” in this instance and expecting others to be able to demonstrate to you that they have the required s&qs.

 

[Paul2]

No, you wanted me to be clear on that, for some reason. Even though it wasn't actually relevant to my point.

It wasn't so much about you being clear, but I thought there was a possibility that you thought dysphoria was a choice, and I was going to push back on that if that possibility was realized. So I had to be clear as to what you thought before I went there.

 

[Paul2]

The jury's out as far as I'm concerned. I'm sure it feels like that to many.

I'm not sure what type of verification is even possible when it's an internal sense. I can't imagine any other stronger practical verification than a person who transitions and stays transitioned and is satisfied, and surely you'll agree that those people exist.

Those people who say "I always knew I was the wrong gender". How do they know? As has been asked many times, how does any male know what a woman feels like, and vice versa?

The Mayo Clinic doesn't define gender dysphoria in terms of knowing what a woman feels like. Rather, here are the markers:

• A marked difference between your inner gender identity and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics, or anticipated secondary sex characteristics in young adolescents
• A strong desire to be rid of primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked difference with your inner gender identity, or a desire to prevent the development of anticipated secondary sex characteristics in young adolescents
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender
• A strong conviction that you have typical feelings and reactions of the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender

How do they know it's not just a different form of the people who hate their legs?

I dunno. I'm having a hard enough time getting up to speed on gender dysphoria. I hesitate to start making claims about other dysphorias, although I acknowledge the usefullness of considering other dysphorias to illuminate all or some or one of them.

 

[theprestige]

The Mayo Clinic doesn't define gender dysphoria in terms of knowing what a woman feels like. Rather, here are the markers:

• A marked difference between your inner gender identity and primary and/or secondary sex characteristics, or anticipated secondary sex characteristics in young adolescents
• A strong desire to be rid of primary and/or secondary sex characteristics because of a marked difference with your inner gender identity, or a desire to prevent the development of anticipated secondary sex characteristics in young adolescents
• A strong desire for the primary and/or secondary sex characteristics of the other gender
• A strong desire to be of the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender
• A strong desire to be treated as the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender
• A strong conviction that you have typical feelings and reactions of the other gender or an alternate gender different from assigned gender

"Inner gender identity" and "typical feelings and reactions of the other gender" sure sound like "what a [woman] feels like" to me.

 

[Paul2]

"Inner gender identity" and "typical feelings and reactions of the other gender" sure sound like "what a [woman] feels like" to me.

Point taken, but I don't know how to get there without slipping into solipsism (how does anyone know what anyone else feels like)?

Perhaps one way might be that one knows what it is like to be male, because one is male, and that part of the male's feeling/identity seems off, seems to be a mistake, so what's left over is being female, and those feelings/identity are reinforced by social and secondary sexual female gender characteristics?

This is way above my pay grade, though.

 

[Boudicca90]

Woman is a category. Trans-woman is a sub-category of woman. Cis-woman is a sub-category of woman.

Are trans-women really women? Yes.
Are cis-women really women? Yes.
Are trans-women really cis-women? No.
Are cis-women really trans-women? No.

What's the problem?

Exactly right. As I've said before, I am as much of a woman as the women hatefully misgendering me as a "man" or "male" constantly in this thread. Emily's Cat and I, for example, are simply different sub-categories of women.

And this is separate and directed towards everyone else, but as far as when I said I am a biological woman as well, it is because biology is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs, it is more about how the brain develops over time and it's effect on the overall person. We don't start out as "blank slates" at birth, but the biological cues we begin with don't ultimately determine the gender and sex we end up as.

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.

Again, exactly right. While I have said "I think of myself as a woman" back when I was still coming to grips with my gender identity, I know myself and who I am much better now and I can confidently say "I am a woman". Not because society views me as a woman because I "pass" (a friend brought up the term blending as an alternative, and I like that better as it doesn't have the connotation that we are being deceptive), but because I truly am a woman.

And as far as JoeMorgue, everyone has a gender identity, both cis and trans and everyone in between. Just that when your gender identity lines up well with the gender you were assigned with at birth, you don't tend to think about it. Much like straight people often can't grasp how someone can be attracted to the same sex when they haven't had that experience of their sexual orientation not lining up with what "biology" says we should do to reproduce.

And I can sympathize with being often misgendered even before I transitioned. I've always had a high and feminine voice, even when I blended as male, which along with my more feminine features, would get me misgendered as a woman from time to time. Back then even though I thought of myself as a woman, it was still frustrating because that wasn't the image I was trying to project. Luckily now it has made transitioning a lot easier for me than others (I am often asked if I've had any vocal training and I haven't).

 

[Meadmaker]

Exactly right. As I've said before, I am as much of a woman as the women hatefully misgendering me as a "man" or "male" constantly in this thread. Emily's Cat and I, for example, are simply different sub-categories of women.

That's all very well and good, but I think the point you are missing is that there is still a very significant difference between those who produce ova and those who produce sperm, between those who can impregnate and those who can become pregnant. (Note to stupid people: Please don't say anything about menopause, sterility, or hand grenades. It's just dumb.)

So, if we are not going to call those people who can become pregnant "women", then we will have to come up with some other term for them.


And if the people who can become pregnant don't want to take off their clothes in the presence of anyone who could impregnate them, I will still take their side when setting up locker rooms and enforcing access policies to them.

 

[Boudicca90]

It isn't in the article, but it's pretty obvious that if someone detransitions, it wasn't some innate feeling that made them transition in the first place.

Or the detransitioning itself.

Confused choice, maybe, but choice all the same.

I'm loving the fact that theprestige and I are on the same page here - I'm pretty sure that's never happened before.

Very few people who detransition do so because they truly feel they weren't transgender and had dysphoria in the first place. The vast majority do so because of society or lack of resources.

They were either convinced by other people or by religion that their feelings weren't valid, or they don't have the money and resources to transition to a point they feel comfortable in their own bodies, or they don't blend in well and it causes them more distress than when they were hiding who they were, or they were disowned by their families/spouses/children for transitioning, etc.

Like everything the transphobes try to argue, it's a problem that doesn't really exist the way they think it does.

Agreed, but surely there are plenty of trans folk who have not detransitioned, and won’t, so we can’t say that their dysphoria is a not a choice on that basis.

Dysphoria is NEVER a choice, but choosing to deal with dysphoria by transitioning is. For me, and other transpeople, it is a choice between living happily as the gender I know myself to be, or slowly killing myself trying to live as the gender I was assigned. My choice was to keep myself alive.

 

[Boudicca90]

That's all very well and good, but I think the point you are missing is that there is still a very significant difference between those who produce ova and those who produce sperm, between those who can impregnate and those who can become pregnant. (Note to stupid people: Please don't say anything about menopause, sterility, or hand grenades. It's just dumb.)

So, if we are not going to call those people who can become pregnant "women", then we will have to come up with some other term for them.


And if the people who can become pregnant don't want to take off their clothes in the presence of anyone who could impregnate them, I will still take their side when setting up locker rooms and enforcing access policies to them.

Females who can become pregnant are certainly women, so I don't know what you are talking about here. And yes, there is a difference, that is why we have designations like cisgender and transgender.

And here's a hint: Most transwomen who take HRT can't produce sperm either and our penises aren't very functional. I know I can't and mine isn't. That's why I just tend to refer to it as a clit at this point, because it's closer to that than a functional penis.

 

[Ziggurat]

And this is separate and directed towards everyone else, but as far as when I said I am a biological woman as well, it is because biology is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs, it is more about how the brain develops over time and it's effect on the overall person.

Biology may be more than chromosomes, but it isn't less than them either. You can't exclude them.

We don't start out as "blank slates" at birth, but the biological cues we begin with don't ultimately determine the gender and sex we end up as.

They very much determine what sex you are. What do you think sex even is?

 

[LondonJohn]

That's all very well and good, but I think the point you are missing is that there is still a very significant difference between those who produce ova and those who produce sperm, between those who can impregnate and those who can become pregnant. (Note to stupid people: Please don't say anything about menopause, sterility, or hand grenades. It's just dumb.)

So, if we are not going to call those people who can become pregnant "women", then we will have to come up with some other term for them.
And if the people who can become pregnant don't want to take off their clothes in the presence of anyone who could impregnate them, I will still take their side when setting up locker rooms and enforcing access policies to them.

In the context of transgender issues, we call such people females.


Once again (as if it hasn't been explained enough already....):

Biology = male/female

Gender = man/woman

I truly cannot understand how this is difficult to comprehend. It's almost got to the point where I wonder if there's a form of deliberate antagonism going on.

 

[Meadmaker]

In the context of transgender issues, we call such people females.


Once again (as if it hasn't been explained enough already....):

Biology = male/female

Gender = man/woman

I truly cannot understand how this is difficult to comprehend. It's almost got to the point where I wonder if there's a form of deliberate antagonism going on.

You will have to explain it until everyone starts using the terminology consistently. I'm perfectly happy to use the terms exactly as you do above.

Now see if you can get other participants to agree. Most of them will be ok with it.

 

[Paul2]

Dysphoria is NEVER a choice, but choosing to deal with dysphoria by transitioning is. For me, and other transpeople, it is a choice between living happily as the gender I know myself to be, or slowly killing myself trying to live as the gender I was assigned. My choice was to keep myself alive.

I might have been too quick to agree because I wanted to get past that point and onto the rest.

 

[TomB]

Exactly right. As I've said before, I am as much of a woman as the women hatefully misgendering me as a "man" or "male" constantly in this thread. Emily's Cat and I, for example, are simply different sub-categories of women.

There's quite a lot packed into a couple sentences here. I'll skip the first part (whether the term male is misgendering) and address that below. I will agree that by the conventions that most have adopted on these threads ("man" and "woman" referring to gender, "male" and "female" referring to sex) the term "man" is misgendering you. I will add a caveat to that, however, that everyone tends to get a little sloppy with the terminology on occasion, because the terms used to be interchangeable and habits kick in.

The second thing here: "sub-categories of women."
This is a new idea that has been proposed from your side of the argument. Until fairly recently, the term cis-woman did not exist. Trans did, meaning a person with a biological male phenotype who lived under a female gender identity. The term woman meant biological female.

Placing biological women in a subset requires redefining woman into an overall category that includes people it did not include before. It's also notable that the term for the group ("cis") did not originate from within the group to whom it is being applied. Rather, it comes from the group that seeks to be added to the previous term, creating the need for subcategories.

None of this is really very important except that both groups value the term "woman" as part of their identity. Just as you value the new meaning, some women value the old. ("I am woman hear me roar").

Both sides are getting bent out of shape over the word for similar reasons. But labels don't change identity.

The other issue with the term, I guess, is that it opens the door to resources that were intended for women. If a program is intended to expand representation of women in fields where they are underrepresented, like STEM, counting trans-women as part of the "woman" demographic can show improvement in that representation without any change in the representation of biological women in the field. One way to look at it is that the initial count that showed under representation counted trans-women as men. If you count now, those trans-women are counted as women. Soit appears more women are in the field when all you have really done is move some people from one side of the equation to the other.

So what, right?
Well, it's like the census. These counts influence policy decisions on resources to correct the imbalance. Which can mean fewer resources allocated and fewer of those available to the biological females who worked to get them in the first place.

And this is separate and directed towards everyone else, but as far as when I said I am a biological woman as well, it is because biology is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs, it is more about how the brain develops over time and it's effect on the overall person. We don't start out as "blank slates" at birth, but the biological cues we begin with don't ultimately determine the gender and sex we end up as.

As a biologist, I don't really follow this thinking. Is there a blurrly line between biology and psychology? Nature vs. nurture? Sure. Could there be a biological component to behavior and self image? Sure. Can it be linked to sex? Absolutely.

But sex intrinsically tied to reproduction. I would say that sex is a physical thing. It refers to the role that an organism's body plays in reproduction. Is it perfect? No. Sterility or deformity does not change sex. (Yes, there are abnormalities that can result in ambiguous development, but that's not really related to this topic.)

As I said, I am of the opinion that there are genetic factors that play into personality, gender, and self-image. When these do not match with physical sense, I'm comfortable saying that the gender and sex do not align. But gender and sex are independent variables with a high correlation. Gender does not dictate sex.

When we are talking about sex in biological terms, we are referring to the properties of your physical body and we use the terms "male" and "female." Doing so is not misgendering, as we are not referring to gender.

Again, exactly right. While I have said "I think of myself as a woman" back when I was still coming to grips with my gender identity, I know myself and who I am much better now and I can confidently say "I am a woman". Not because society views me as a woman because I "pass" (a friend brought up the term blending as an alternative, and I like that better as it doesn't have the connotation that we are being deceptive), but because I truly am a woman.

And that's fine. By your definition, you are correct.
But understand, that not everyone has accepted the proposed new definitions. Disagreement with the new definitions does not mean they are trying to erase you or that you should not have equal rights. It means that they see the term for their identity being co-opted and they don't identify with the provided replacement term ("cis-woman").

So much discussion is prevented by focusing on this.

And as far as JoeMorgue, everyone has a gender identity, both cis and trans and everyone in between. Just that when your gender identity lines up well with the gender you were assigned with at birth, you don't tend to think about it. Much like straight people often can't grasp how someone can be attracted to the same sex when they haven't had that experience of their sexual orientation not lining up with what "biology" says we should do to reproduce.

As I understand it, gender is not assigned at birth. Sex is observed at birth. (Sometimes mis-observed in intersex cases.) Parents and others assume gender based on sex. Most of the time they are correct. But it is not a misidentification by doctors at birth, but an incorrect assumption afterwards. In fairness, this happens because with an infant, sex is the only clue to go on.

And I can sympathize with being often misgendered even before I transitioned. I've always had a high and feminine voice, even when I blended as male, which along with my more feminine features, would get me misgendered as a woman from time to time. Back then even though I thought of myself as a woman, it was still frustrating because that wasn't the image I was trying to project. Luckily now it has made transitioning a lot easier for me than others (I am often asked if I've had any vocal training and I haven't).

I'm very much a cis-straight male and I've been misgendered as well. I used to have long hair and that's one of the things that just happens when hairstyles are imperfectly associated with gender. Same with voices. In your case, I would say you are very lucky as voice appears to me to be one of the harder things to transition.

 

[TomB]

In the context of transgender issues, we call such people females.


Once again (as if it hasn't been explained enough already....):

Biology = male/female

Gender = man/woman

I truly cannot understand how this is difficult to comprehend. It's almost got to the point where I wonder if there's a form of deliberate antagonism going on.

I think the problem here is that the disassociation of sex and gender causes a bit of confusion as people are used to using the terms interchangeably.

Add more confusion because some, such as Boudicca, appear to want to re-associate sex to where sex follows gender. In other words, she refers to her transition as not only transitioning gender, but also sex. Thus she doesn't accept the term "male" being applied to her.

the result is that, in conversations with Boudicca, there is not term that applies to what you term biology. (She also considers herself to be biologically female.)

 

[theprestige]

In the context of transgender issues, we call such people females

Who's "we" in this context? Boudicca has explicitly stated that describing her as male is hatefully misgendering her.

 

[theprestige]

Q. What do you call an external organ in male mammals, that's connected to testes via the vas deferens, and to the bladder via the urethra?

A. A penis.

Q. What do you call it when its reproductive functions have been stunted by surgery, hormones, or chemical treatments?

A. A penis. A clitoris. That's not funny, transphobe.