• 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.
I will add that if there is a different definition of "man" or "woman", I'm willing to entertain it, but "a type of gender" is not a definition.
 
Meadmaker said:
I will add that if there is a different definition of "man" or "woman", I'm willing to entertain it, but "a type of gender" is not a definition.
Click to expand...

No, I gave the definition of gender earlier. What I'm saying is that "man" and "woman" are both culturally defined statuses that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits.



eta: and with that, I have to go do women's work and make dinner for my family and perhaps read bedtime stories. I will be back between a few hours from now and some time tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Gender is a descriptive and/or prescriptive distinction derived from biological reality?
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Why is what important?
 
Upchurch said:
No, I gave the definition of gender earlier. What I'm saying is that "man" and "woman" are both culturally defined statuses that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits.
Click to expand...

Well, if you give me a definition of "man", I'll see if I can use that. If it's consistent and non-circular, I'm perfectly willing to even use it in my posts. Dictionaries are full of words with multiple definitions. Once in a while extra clarification is needed to unequivocate the language. I'm fine with that.

So far, I have never seen a definition of "man" or "woman" that meets the criteria of consistent and non-circular, except for the definition that is based on sex.

Unless you add something to what you wrote above, then "man" and "woman" are the same thing, and while there are people who would be happy with that, I think it would make it difficult to use the words for any practical purpose.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point was, I'm not a policy maker. I have nothing to do with any of that. As far as I'm concerned, or anything that affects me or is affected by me, Boudicca is a woman and would be treated as such. Hell, my mental "picture" of her now is a woman.

Yet she views me as an ideological enemy (and I'm sure others in the thread do too) because I'm hung up on the conflation of SEX and GENDER, and how weird people are being about it. It's really freaking me out at times, it's the opposite of how this place normally is. We tend to over-dissect and devils-advocate things to the point of tediousness, as a general trend. But this issue has people all out of sorts. I just don't get why we have to abandon logic or consistency with regard to conceptualizations like "biological," or deny that sexual dimorphism exists in humans. It's bizarre.

I guess someone will probably come along and say something like, "Why do things have to make sense to you, huh? Gay marriage didn't make sense to a lot of people, blah, blah blah..." Look, it's different. "Marriage must be between a man and a woman" and "humans exhibit sexual dimorphism" are way different levels of statement, and if you don't get that - well, I don't believe you. Everyone gets that.

But that being said, it's true, things don't have to make sense to me in order to proceed. I get that. At the end of the day, society will evolve the way it evolves. I'll just be along for the ride.
 
Upchurch said:
Great. When everyone is on board, we can at least agree that gender roles are not gender.
Click to expand...

They have nothing to do with gender.

It is just couples working together and doing jobs that suit their lifestyles.

As I said. I like cooking so it is easier for me to do it.

My wife likes gardening. I detest gardening, so she ends up doing it, (admittedly I sometimes help starting the mower).

She does the laundry, (mainly because she gets annoyed when I fold things the wrong way)

(It even comes down to putting socks together. which I have no idea why females even care about)

I do the vacuuming quite a bit, but it teds to be a who happens to be around and have the time thing.

It is as I said. Just different couples doing different things that makes life easy.
 
Upchurch said:
Then, I would point out that your definition of gender is incomplete as it does not account for all uses of the word gender, particularly of those gender systems that contain more than two genders. How would you account for those uses?
Click to expand...

Apparently you can't define gender as it is down to the individual for their own definition and on some infinite spectrum.
 
Since we're doing the definitions thing (yet again) here are mine:

Female: Mammals born with ova

Femininity: Cultural expectations assoc. w/ human females

Girls/Women: Individuals generally expected to perform femininity

ETA: Please note that I'm not endorsing the abovementioned expectations, certainly not for women alone.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
No, I gave the definition of gender earlier. What I'm saying is that "man" and "woman" are both culturally defined statuses that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits.
Click to expand...

This redefines 'woman' from being 'adult human female' to 'somebody with predominately feminine traits' and the same for men. So a woman who is not particularly feminine is less of a woman and a man who is less masculine is less of a man.

This is not 'gender fluidity'. It is gender conformity. Third and fourth genders in other cultures are a safety valve to allow people who are gender atypical (and gay people) to escape the rigidity of enforced gender norms, including early marriage and strict division of labor. Thus by treating non-conformers as being not really men and women but some other gender, conformity is maintained.

True gender fluidity is to state that men and women can have any mix of cognitive and behavioural characteristics (and any sexual orientation), and regardless are still men or women based on biological sex.

Gender identity ideology creates a new binary between transgender and cisgender. Being cisgender is culturally defined as having traits that match ones biology and being transgender as possessing the traits of the opposite or some other gender. It is a socially conservative, sexist and reactionary ideology.
 
theprestige said:
If you live in a representative democracy, you are a policy maker. You have everything to do with all of that. You're not posting Best Korea, by chance?
Click to expand...

Yes, but I was trying to make a point about the polarization and black-and-white stances taken on the issue, as I said.

On that note, though, what can people actually do with regard to policy? I'm asking, not challenging. If I did have a view, or an idea for a specific policy that might work, what should I be doing with it?

(I know about voting, obviously, but politicians are usually as weird and dodgy about this stuff as anybody else. Letters to representatives?)
 
Butter! said:
Yes, but I was trying to make a point about the polarization and black-and-white stances taken on the issue, as I said.

On that note, though, what can people actually do with regard to policy? I'm asking, not challenging. If I did have a view, or an idea for a specific policy that might work, what should I be doing with it?

(I know about voting, obviously, but politicians are usually as weird and dodgy about this stuff as anybody else. Letters to representatives?)
Click to expand...

In this context I'd settle for talking about the kind of policies you think should be implemented, and why.

I get that there's not much you can do, but I think it's still incumbent on you as a citizen to at least have an opinion of your own about what's being done.
 
theprestige said:
In this context I'd settle for talking about the kind of policies you think should be implemented, and why.

I get that there's not much you can do, but I think it's still incumbent on you as a citizen to at least have an opinion of your own about what's being done.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if many citizens were hesitant to get involved in this particular policy debate, though. That's often the problem when a topic becomes too heated. It can be hard to think productively about the issues when you're confused and/or on the defensive.

Not that I'm claiming to have a solution.


ETA - Similarly, it can also be hard to learn about an issue or set of issues when the surrounding debate is both "amped up" and characterized by specific jargon and terminology that newcomers might not understand.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom