• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
What the hell does that even mean?
Click to expand...

That means exactly what it says. I met people I didn't understand, got to know their perspective, did some reading, and a lot of introspective questioning on what I "knew" to be true.

I've tried to share some of that in response to some direct questions and some, let's say, less nuanced statements. In response, you (and others) have accused me of playing semantic games, trolling, and straight up ************. Just because you don't understand something (your words) doesn't mean it's nonsense, wrong, without merit, or not worth attempting to understand.

That's why I've tried to approach this as an invitation, if anyone is interested. If not, I can (try to) move along and let society take it's course.


ETA: that was a weird auto-censor. The asterisks were supposed to have the acronym of BS.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Just an add
Click to expand...

er, let's pretend that was an numbered list.

  1. You're thinking of a transexual.
  2. That's the difference between not conforming to gender roles and being transgendered.
  3. Yes, that's why specifying one's pronouns is becoming more common.
  4. Okay.
 
Upchurch said:
That means exactly what it says. I met people I didn't understand, got to know their perspective, did some reading, and a lot of introspective questioning on what I "knew" to be true.

I've tried to share some of that in response to some direct questions and some, let's say, less nuanced statements. In response, you (and others) have accused me of playing semantic games, trolling, and straight up ************. Just because you don't understand something (your words) doesn't mean it's nonsense, wrong, without merit, or not worth attempting to understand.

That's why I've tried to approach this as an invitation, if anyone is interested. If not, I can (try to) move along and let society take it's course.
Click to expand...

We don't understand it because you're not explaining it. We're not mind readers.

You'd told us paragraphs about what you're not talking about and mumbled a lot of stuff about "Well it's not that simple" and "Well it's complicated" and said the word "spectrum" about 5,000 time more than you need to, and continued vague threats that we'll all be sorry in about 10 years, and that's pretty much it. Then you declare us "not worth talking to" and flounce, only to return and try and start the conversation over again from step 1.

(Summer Smith Voice) YOU'RE NOT THE VICTIM HERE.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
That means exactly what it says. I met people I didn't understand, got to know their perspective, did some reading, and a lot of introspective questioning on what I "knew" to be true.

I've tried to share some of that in response to some direct questions and some, let's say, less nuanced statements. In response, you (and others) have accused me of playing semantic games, trolling, and straight up ************. Just because you don't understand something (your words) doesn't mean it's nonsense, wrong, without merit, or not worth attempting to understand.

That's why I've tried to approach this as an invitation, if anyone is interested. If not, I can (try to) move along and let society take it's course.
Click to expand...

That is great. But is a trans woman biologically a female?
 
Upchurch said:
Okay. Can we agree that genders and gender roles are different things?
Click to expand...

Why do you avoid biology?

Gender and gender roles are pointless topics.

Most couples don't even run with them

Because they are silly and frankly not practical.
 
Upchurch said:
Okay. Can we agree that genders and gender roles are different things?
Click to expand...

No. Explain the difference without just tautologically defining them as what you want them to be. I no longer trust you to be consistent. Before I give an answer I want a definition of both, a meaningful one, I can hold you to and call you out on it when you change it mid-argument so you can twist it to "Oh so you're saying this!" next post. I'm sorry but it's come to that. "I need it in writing" so to speak.

Again.

Concept 1 (Call it whatever the hell you want) - Objective, biological differences that don't give a tinpenny fart about your, mine, or the person who has them opinion about the matter.

Concept 2 (Call it whatever the hell you want) - Subjective expectations put on us because of society. Things we can fight to change.

Those are the only two differences on the table. That's it. I'm not letting you "define, redefine, parallel define, say 'It's complicated' a whole lot" your way into a third distinction without clearly and consistently and meaningfully defining it and then defending it.
 
Last edited:
cullennz said:
Why do you avoid biology?
Click to expand...
I've answered this. Both why I avoid it and what I think on the subject.

I think biological males are male and biological females are female. I think there is some fuzziness in there, but most people are one or the other.

cullennz said:
Gender and gender roles are pointless topics.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to find common ground in order ot have a conversation.

Can we agree that they are not the same thing and are not 1:1?

For example, cooking and shopping are traditionally women's work, but you would not think it odd that I do those things in my home nor consider me a woman for doing that work, correct?
 
cullennz said:
Why do you avoid biology?
Click to expand...

That's one of the strange things about this whole debate. There's a contradiction that I can't fully wrap my head around. On the one hand, biology is supposed to be irrelevant. We're all supposed to say that, anyways.

But it's clearly not. It's not even irrelevant to trans people. It's certainly not irrelevant to Boudicca90. She takes hormones to change her body, because she doesn't want the body that biology gave her. If biology didn't matter, there would be no point in medical intervention. So biology is still essential in some manner, even to those who try hardest to deny it.
 
Upchurch said:
I've answered this. Both why I avoid it and what I think on the subject.

I think biological males are male and biological females are female. I think there is some fuzziness in there, but most people are one or the other.


I'm trying to find common ground in order ot have a conversation.

Can we agree that they are not the same thing and are not 1:1?

For example, cooking and shopping are traditionally women's work, but you would not think it odd that I do those things in my home nor consider me a woman for doing that work, correct?
Click to expand...

I do all the cooking and shopping in my house.

Situations are probably slightly different but cooking is my chill out thing and shopping is purely just blokes just buy what is needed and don't fart around being influenced by big supermarket lay outs.

It is not that unusuall
 
JoeMorgue said:
No.
Click to expand...
Okay, earlier, you said:
JoeMorgue said:
Gender is "Women wear dresses, have long hair, wear makeup, do the cleaning, and raise the children."
Click to expand...
I contend what you described here is not gender, but a traditional woman gender role.

I would define a gender role as a set actions culturally associated with a gender, but not exclusive to that gender. In your above example, men could wear a dress, have long hair, wear makeup, clean, or raise children and still be considered a man.

Whatever a gender is, can we agree that it is not the set of action culturally associated with a gender?
 
Upchurch said:
I contend what you described here is not gender, but a traditional woman gender role.
Click to expand...

And I asked to explain the difference. You still have not.

I would define a gender role as a set actions culturally associated with a gender, but not exclusive to that gender. In your above example, men could wear a dress, have long hair, wear makeup, clean, or raise children and still be considered a man.
Click to expand...

Okay. If that's your definition of "gender roles" then what is your definition of gender then? It can't be biological because that's sex. And biological and cultural pressure cover everything there's no gap that needs a third category. So what is it? Again I asked for your definition that I can force you consistently use before I answer your question so you can't twist my words back on me.

Whatever a gender is, can we agree that it is not the set of action culturally associated with a gender?
Click to expand...

No, no stop right there. You can't demand we acknowledge that gender and our new third category "gender roles" are different but then follow that up with "LOL whatever gender even is" as if you don't think you know.

Define what you arguing for. Don't try to get us to do it first and then tell us we're wrong.
 
Last edited:
Butter! said:
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.
Click to expand...

So here's where we have a problem. She would also be welcome at my all-girl sewing circle, which I could not attend myself. If I ever organize an all girl Chess tournament, which could happen, I would allow a trans-girl to play Chess in the girls' section.

But if I host an all-girl track meet, she is not welcome.

One that actually came up on another board was what happens if I have a high school robotics team that includes a trans girl? Is she welcome at the all girl robotics competition? I will say yes. Emily's Cat might have a problem with that one, but I don't. What would happen if they have to stay overnight in a hotel room, which are customarily shared with 3-4 students?

That's a bit trickier. I don't know exactly what I would do, because I've never had to face the issue, and there are a lot of variables there. What I do know is that if even one of the girls, or one of the girls' parents, objected to sharing a room with the transgirl, I would side with the girl or the girls' parents, and I would get a separate room for the transgirl, if possible.

And that's where I'm at with locker rooms as well.

So the problem is that if I declare that a transgirl or transwoman is "really" a woman, they will often say that means there is no basis for not including them in athletic competitions, locker rooms, shared hotel spaces for minors, or other situations where segregation of males and females is normal and customary, and has an underlying biological basis.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
That means exactly what it says. I met people I didn't understand, got to know their perspective, did some reading, and a lot of introspective questioning on what I "knew" to be true.
Click to expand...

You do not seem to be able to accept that others who disagree with you have looked into this just as carefully and have reached different conclusions. Perhaps they even reached different conclusions because they looked into it more critically than you did or looked more at actual empirical evidence instead of activist dogma. Your statement above says nothing regarding the truth of what you are claiming. Exactly the same statement would be made by somebody explaining why they came to believe in astrology, or joined a cult.
 
Upchurch said:
An asexual person has no gender. (The "null gender" perhaps? I don't think I know any asexual people.)
Click to expand...

The terminology I have seen used is "gender neutral". I don't know fi that's the generally approved version.
 
Upchurch said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok. That's an answer, but when it comes to the core question of "Is she a woman", it is obvious you must be using a different definition of "woman" than I am. I know my definition, and she doesn't fit. There's really no room for debate on that issue. (My definition is adult, human, biological female. A producer of sperm cannot be a woman.)

You must have a different definition.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom