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

[Upchurch]

Do you mean your definition of "gender" is compatible with his definition of "woman"? You haven't offered a definition of "man" or of "woman". You offered a definition of "gender", and then said that "man" and "woman" are examples of gender. Ok. No problem so far, but you haven't defined either "man" or "woman".

“Man” is a gender, which is to say, a culturally defined status that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits. The mix is dependent on the culture. The majority of the subculture of this thread appears to prefer the mix identical to the male sex.

“Woman” is a gender, which is to say, a culturally defined status that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits. The mix is dependent on the culture. The majority of the subculture of this thread appears to prefer the mix identical to the female sex.

 

[Upchurch]

But are except in rare circumstances one of two biological sexes.

Gender in an individuals head is kind of irrelevant

You didn’t read my link above. Some other gender systems are defined by the society, not in individual heads.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is demonstrably not true. There are, as I have pointed out, societies that divide people into two or more genders that are not based solely on biological sex. Any definition of gender that does not take this into account is incomplete, perhaps to the point of willful ignorance.

How does this relate to anything I said?

Nothing in my definition requires only two genders.

 

[Upchurch]

How does this relate to anything I said?

Nothing in my definition requires only two genders.

Then what role does biological sex play into it?

 

[theprestige]

We've let the transgender side pull us so far into the weeds the question of what the point is has become a dot on the horizon.

If none of it matters, "it's all a spectrum," and "But this is just a Western concept and the Mwoai people of Fiji have 375 genders..." then WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?

Boudicaa is a man, woman, both, neither. Problem solved who wants cake!

This.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Then what role does biological sex play into it?

Okay, where are we going with this? I agree with others that you seem to be "Socratically" trolling, trying to guide us to an answer you want us to give you.

Every society understands the concept of two distinct biological sexes. That's sort of necessary for the whole "sex and procreation" thing. No matter what Ted and Larry identify as, if they don't have the proper parts to rub together they ain't making a kid. I pretty much guarantee that no matter how they conceptualize anything all societies get that concept.

"So and so society has this many genders" doesn't relate to anything being discussed.

It doesn't matter how many genders a society recognizes, if they think it changes anything about your biological sex they are wrong, so there is no place to shove the "gender soul" you're trying to define into existence into anything still.

 

[d4m10n]

“Woman” is a gender, which is to say, a culturally defined status that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits. The mix is dependent on the culture. The majority of the subculture of this thread appears to prefer the mix identical to the female sex.

In what sense is being biologically female a "particular mix of masculine and feminine traits," though? I'd thought masculinity and femininity were about how we behave in society, not about how we look in the shower.

 

[Upchurch]

Okay, where are we going with this? I agree with others that you seem to be "Socratically" trolling, trying to guide us to an answer you want us to give you.

I was trying to break things down and trying to find common ground so that we could have a discussion and maybe so you could understand what I’ve been trying to explain, even if you don’t agree.

Every society understands the concept of two distinct biological genders. That's sort of necessary for the whole "sex and procreation" thing.

You are conflating sex and gender. Every society understands the concept of sex. Not every society shares the western concept of gender.

"So and so society has this many genders" doesn't relate to anything being discussed.

It does. It demonstrates that the concept of gender is not, and needs not be, exclusively tied to biological sex. That is precisely what is being discussed.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It does. It demonstrates that the concept of gender is not, and needs not be, exclusively tied to biological sex.

Then the concept becomes even more meaningless and further away from anything even resembling something that could be mistaken for something that if you saw it in low light from a distance without your glasses you'd think it was something that self-identifies as A ******* POINT.

Man, woman, fisherman, baker, candlestick maker, all genders. Why should I care and what does it have to do with anything?

 

[Upchurch]

In what sense is being biologically female a "particular mix of masculine and feminine traits," though? I'd thought masculinity and femininity were about how we behave in society, not about how we look in the shower.

The contents of one’s underwear can certainly be a masculine or feminine trait, if that’s what the society bases their idea of “man” or “woman”.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It really seems like you want to say "Gender is related to sex but only when I want it to be" but can't find a way to make that not sound incredibly stupid.

The whole "Well according to the society" thing is Special Pleading.

The Hindu Caste System doesn't actually create special, objective, biological subgroups of people just because the Culture of India say says it does.

 

[d4m10n]

The contents of one’s underwear can certainly be a masculine or feminine trait, if that’s what the society bases their idea of “man” or “woman”.

I'm fairly confident that the usual definition of terms like masculinity and femininity do not include the physical contents of one's knickers. I'm just going to block quote the relevant wiki article here:

Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. Although masculinity is socially constructed, research indicates that some behaviors considered masculine are biologically influenced. To what extent masculinity is biologically or socially influenced is subject to debate. It is distinct from the definition of the biological male sex, as both males and females can exhibit masculine traits.

(Internal footnotes omitted.)

 

[Upchurch]

Then the concept becomes even more meaningless and further away from anything even resembling something that could be mistaken for something that if you saw it in bad ligh you'd think it was something that self-identifies as A ******* POINT.

It’s only meaningless if you think biological sex is the only thing that has meaning. Note everyone shares your values and doing so is not nonsense.

 

[Upchurch]

I'm fairly confident that the usual definition of terms like masculinity and femininity do not include the physical contents of one's knickers. I'm just going to block quote the relevant wiki article here: (Internal footnotes omitted.)

I was euphemistically referring to the blurring between sex and gender in this thread.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It’s only meaningless if you think biological sex is the only thing that has meaning. Note everyone shares your values and doing so is not nonsense.

Glib truisms about being open-minded are not answers.

Glib truisms about being open-minded coming from someone with a "Not everyone shares your values, so share mine or I'll call you a transphobic bigot" attitude is even less of one.

You can rant and rave against "Oh so you think only biological matters" but you can "self-identify" as someone 7 feet tall all you want, you still ain't reaching the top of the fridge.

Just because sexual stereotypes have been around so long that weird self-feeding mythologies now complete with their own self-feeding parodies and deconstructions have started to form doesn't make anything being argued any functionally different.

 

[JoeMorgue]

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.

"Extremely Sincere and Occasionally Frustrated" is going to be the title of my autobiography...

 

[d4m10n]

I was euphemistically referring to the blurring between sex and gender in this thread.

I think most of us got past that around thread #2.

 

[cullennz]

I was euphemistically referring to the blurring between sex and gender in this thread.

There is only any "blurring" by certain posters.

 

[Upchurch]

I think most of us got past that around thread #2.

Not as many as you think.

 

[Meadmaker]

“Man” is a gender, which is to say, a culturally defined status that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits. The mix is dependent on the culture. The majority of the subculture of this thread appears to prefer the mix identical to the male sex.

“Woman” is a gender, which is to say, a culturally defined status that represents a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits. The mix is dependent on the culture. The majority of the subculture of this thread appears to prefer the mix identical to the female sex.

So, "man" is a particular mix of masculine and feminine traits defined by culture. Which traits? It seems you are saying that there are subcultures, and the subculture gets to choose which traits. So, my subculture says that the traits which define "man" are things like sperm production, or the organs associated with the same. Other subcultures, such as yours, might choose different traits.

It seems like there's no wrong answer here. A person is a man if that person has the traits that I say are necessary to be a man. Of course, someone else will choose a different set of traits, and so that person would look at the exact same person and say that they are not a man, because they lack the essential traits the other person requires for manhood. So I would say that a given person is a man, and you would say they are not a man, and we would both be right? In fact, everyone can have their own definition. People with lots of overlap in definitions form a separate culture with specifically identified traits that form that subculture's definition of "man".

This is going to get very confusing from a public policy perspective.

By the way, you haven't actually given us a definition of "man" for you to use. You have just said that different cultures or subcultures may have different definitions, based on a mix of masculine and feminine traits.

I'm not sure this is really workable as a definition.

Since my definition is, so far, the only one actually on the table, I'll keep using it exclusively at least until another is offered. My subculture says that the masculine trait that matters for the definition of "man" is that the person must be of the male sex.