Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Based solely on what I've read*, I'd say Boudicca is a woman.
* internet trolls are always a possibility, but for the sake of argument lets assume good faith.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
Based solely on what I've read*, I'd say Boudicca is a woman.
* internet trolls are always a possibility, but for the sake of argument lets assume good faith.
I would have thought it was kind of easy to see Boudicca obviously has a say, given I said whatever they think they are.
Do I actually think they are a woman?
Probably not, but as I say happy to roll with it, as it has zero affect on me.
Could be different if my daughter was a rugby player and Boudicca was demanding to beat the crap out of her every week, but this isn't the case.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
How about you providing us with your own answers to those questions?
Unless you are just sealioning.
Just to demonstrate my good faith in the matter, I will provide my own answers.
Is Boudicca a woman? I would say no. Not in the common, ordinary, definition of the word, "woman". I'm willing to consider the possibility that there is some definition of the word "woman" where she might be a woman, but in order to make that evaluation, I need to have a definition against which to evaluate the claim. None has been provided in the last five continuations of the thread, but who knows when lightning might strike?
Does she only think she is a woman? She understands the definition of "woman" that I use, and by that definition she does not think she is a woman. If she is using some other definition of "woman", I would have to see the definition.
Does she have a choice? The question of free will is a debate that goes back farther than this thread.
I think the meaningful question is whether there is any option for people to change their internal perception that makes them feel as if there is something about them that makes them have more in common with the opposite sex than with their own biological sex. An alternative phrasing would be to ask whether transgenderism can be "cured". Can somebody who thinks of themselves as transgender ever stop thinking of themselves that way. I would say more research is necessary, but there are strong indications that at least for some people, the answer is "no". i.e. they have no choice.
Last edited:
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Good for you, but don't give me **** for taking the time to try to learn and understand something that is different from the way I raised.
What the hell does that even mean?
Last edited:
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
I feel like I'm freaking stoned reading this conversation, except I don't get any of the euphoria. Is it really so hard to understand?
The whole thing makes sense when sex and gender are viewed as different, though sometimes interrelated, concepts. The whole thing stops making sense when sex and gender are used as interchangeable concepts. Most people in this discussion can't seem to make up their mind about whether they're using the two words as synonyms or not.
I have no issue seeing Boudicca as a woman. She's a woman. Her gender is feminine. She's welcome at my all-girl sewing circle.
It's the biological woman claim that is the sticking point for me. We've redefined "woman," and I'm okay with that, because I really am capable of viewing sex and gender as different concepts. But if we're now redefining "biological" as well, that just seems senseless.
I don't like convoluted, idiosyncratic language that seems designed to confuse, and the trans debate appears to have a great deal of that going on at the moment. It's a problem, especially because it leads to misunderstandings and arguments that don't need to happen.
The whole thing makes sense when sex and gender are viewed as different, though sometimes interrelated, concepts. The whole thing stops making sense when sex and gender are used as interchangeable concepts. Most people in this discussion can't seem to make up their mind about whether they're using the two words as synonyms or not.
I have no issue seeing Boudicca as a woman. She's a woman. Her gender is feminine. She's welcome at my all-girl sewing circle.
It's the biological woman claim that is the sticking point for me. We've redefined "woman," and I'm okay with that, because I really am capable of viewing sex and gender as different concepts. But if we're now redefining "biological" as well, that just seems senseless.
I don't like convoluted, idiosyncratic language that seems designed to confuse, and the trans debate appears to have a great deal of that going on at the moment. It's a problem, especially because it leads to misunderstandings and arguments that don't need to happen.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's interesting that Upchurch keeps avoiding this question.
Reset? Sure. Equivocate? Sure. Hoist themselves on the petard of "ambiguity"? Sure. Actually engage with the one open and important question left before us? Absolutely not.
Following Meadmaker's example: I think transwomen are biologically men. I think this is no impediment to treating them as women in almost every scenario, including in public policy. There are a very few important exceptions that merit serious discussion. Discussion which Upchurch and others have been strenuously avoiding for the last five installments of this thread.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I do not think that one's gender in a society is determined by one's sex.
I do think transwomen are women and I don't think they have any more choice in the matter than I do in being a man. I do not think it something arrived at on a whim. I do not think it is something that they can simply decide not to be.
Further, I am a man because being a man is part of my identity. In slightly more detail, I am a straight, Caucasian, family cis-man, and Eagle Scout. I am a mediocre tuba player who often plays human or elvish rogue-types in D&D. I am an experienced troubleshooter in both code and mechanical problems. All of these things and more constitute the core of who I am. Even if I never played tuba again, I would still consider myself a tuba player. If my consciousness were transplanted into the body of a woman, I would still consider myself a man, husband to my wife, and the father of my children.
I think it might be just a case of some people not being able to grasp the concept sex is different to gender,
Or just purposefully trying to merge the two, which isn't a first.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I was raised in a community that thought girls are exclusively female, boys are exclusively male, and homosexuals are unnatural freaks of nature, often the butt of jokes. I was also raised in a community that thought people making racist jokes didn't mean any harm by them.
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
How would you react to the following:
A trans woman is a (biologically male) woman.
A cis woman is a (biologically female) woman.
A trans woman is a (biologically male) woman.
A cis woman is a (biologically female) woman.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I avoid it for the same reason Joe avoids some other questions. It feels like a trap. I know that biological sex is largely, but not completely, binary. I know that people like to conflate sex and gender.
But, most of all, I avoid it because it does not matter to the question at hand. It is a distraction, a red herring.
If you take away the racist bit (there were jokes, like being called the token mostly whitey in my rugby league team, and me calling the fattest Samoan dude chocolate cake) and tone down the being gay bit (there was jokes as kids, but not any being freaks), pretty much same as me.
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
I'd react by asking why is it important?
I'd also say that it is more accurate to say:
A transwoman has transitioned outwardly from being a man to being a woman.
A ciswoman has always outwardly been a woman.
A gender fluid person has gone back and forth.
An asexual person has no gender. (The "null gender" perhaps? I don't think I know any asexual people.)
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
It's not a red herring! Speaking for myself, it's literally the only issue I have with the current trans positions (the conflation of sex and gender). What are you referring to when you say the question at hand? We're still not following each other, I don't think.
This is what I was trying to say earlier. This discussion can't advance because people with questions or disagreements are automatically assumed to be setting up bad-faith gotchas. I was pretty sure that's what was going on.
How you could read Joe's posts and think he's trying to trap you, I just have no idea. He's been extremely sincere (if occasionally frustrated), and he has repeatedly tried to flesh out his reasoning for everyone to understand. More than once, one of his long, detailed posts has been met with a snarky one-liner and dismissed.
Butter!
Rough Around the Edges
Asexual means a person has no sexual desire or attraction. It has nothing to do with gender.
I think there is an "agender" gender-distinction, though. So maybe that's what you were thinking of. And I would probably interpret agender as meaning that the person in question doesn't identify strongly with either masculine or feminine social "roles." Which, again, makes perfect sense to me.
Pretty much as I see it.
I would tease another strand out - I don’t care what word is used to describe someone’s “sex biology”, whether that is “woman” or “female” or “person with XX objective criteria” or so on. But because language is itself a social and culturally determined way of exchanging information I can understand why for some people using the word woman is very important to describe how they perceive themselves. And I’m happy to go along with that, it literally costs society nor myself anything.
Perhaps it is growing up in a culture and society that told me in very plain language that albeit I was biologically male I was not a man that I can empathise why the actual word “woman” can have so much emotional importance. I even can understand to an extent why some biological females object to trans-woman wanting to simply be known as woman - I dislike the recent misappropriation and redefined use of “queer”.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Here's the thing, though: The biological question is the only question left. Every question in this discussion where biology doesn't matter has already been answered, by the skeptics, in favor of transgender identity. The only questions left are questions of where biology matters, how much it matters, and what should reasonably done about it.
And yeah it feels like a trap. It is a trap. If you say, yes, transwomen are biological females, then you'll be challenged by the skeptics to defend that position. But if you say no, transwomen are not biological females, you'll be challenged by the activists to explain how come you're a gigantic transphobe. It's quite the catch-22. I'm not at all surprised you want to avoid it.
- Status