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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Upchurch said:
Not as many as you think.
Click to expand...

What I think is that there is a fair bit of confusion stemming from imprecise terminology. Some people use "woman" and "man" to refer to individuals who fit socially imposed gender roles, others to the biological sexes upon whom those roles are usually imposed, still others to groups of people who have a certain internal sense of self.
 
I think it’s only LondonJohn and Boudicca who’ve staked out biological as well as generic womanhood for trans women in here. I consider this to be a political rather than literal move. To quote Gnome from earlier in the thread:
gnome said:
Responding more specifically to the "reality" question--I perceive differently. I don't see that the biological differences are being literally denied--instead I see it promoted that the non-biological components of gender, the ones we socially interact with most, are of greater consequence.
Click to expand...

Of course that does mean I think they are intentionally stretching language past meaning to make a point but mangling language a bit when riled does not bother me. I’m taking it as a “might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb” type of thing.

In practice I do think safety and sport are going to shake out ok with more compromise for people who are playing nice and less for people who are being bullies, on both sides. I don’t think we’re on a slippery slope to ignoring biological realities so much as we’re in early days of figuring out how to navigate all this. The kind of stuff Meadmaker worries about is worth worrying about. We’ll figure it out.

And then I’ll quote myself again lol

Lithrael said:
But this is exactly why I think there’s three things going on because what you describe with your ‘gender is negotiable’ line is the perception of a person’s gender by others. And the thing that keeps getting hilited and demanded a noncircular definition of is the perception of a person’s gender by their own self.

I think internal perception of ones own gender simply is circular, is an assertion, and is fine that way. It’s why I’ve occasionally likened it to religious feelings. Everyone will have different ideas of what it means, others may say how can you be x if you don’t do y, but a person’s personal religious convictions (or lack thereof) are their own anyways. Some people will even lie about it when asked. Most won’t. You can’t demand a way for them to prove it because no such thing exists.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
What I think is that there is a fair bit of confusion stemming from imprecise terminology. Some people use "woman" and "man" to refer to individuals who fit socially imposed gender roles, others to the biological sexes upon whom those roles are usually imposed, still others to groups of people who have a certain internal sense of self.
Click to expand...

Agree not sure why it is so hard to be honest

Man/Woman/Fa'afafine/Fakaleiti - Whatever you think apparently on some weird spectrum. And a few other versions of the same thing.
Male- Biological male
Female - Biological female
Dude/bloke- Male
Chick - Female
 
Upchurch said:
Not as many as you think.
Click to expand...

You can't just be cryptic all the time and pretend to be engaging in the argument in good faith.

Here, let me start.

Would it be okay with you if we simply said:

Biological sex breaks down into males and females and it entirely depends on anatomy.

And

Gender is based on behaviour that is socially understood as masculine, feminine, and in somewhat rarer cases a number of other categories?

Would that be a good place to start? (From what I understand, Boudicca would object, but you seem to okay with the first part).
 
cullennz said:
But are except in rare circumstances one of two biological sexes.

Gender in an individuals head is kind of irrelevant
Click to expand...

The only exception I can think of to two sexes in humans would be mixed sex chimeras. Otherwise, there are only two sexes. There are various abnormal sexual developments, but the underlying genetics remains one or the other. And even those abnormal sexual developments aren’t actually relevant here. The trans debate isn’t being driven by such cases.
 
cullennz said:
Good point

How many mammals have the male getting the food and the chick looking after the kids?
Click to expand...


Pretty stupid question.

The behaviour of species vary a lot. Not all mammals are social in the same way humans are. The idea that males get the food in most species is actually probably false.
 
angrysoba said:
Pretty stupid question.

The behaviour of species vary a lot. Not all mammals are social in the same way humans are. The idea that males get the food in most species is actually probably false.
Click to expand...

Not that much with mammals
 
Ziggurat said:
So... not socially constructed? I’m not sure what point of view you’re arguing for here.
Click to expand...

Nothing really.

As at the end of the day it all comes down to two sexes making kids.

The whole gender thing is as mentioned kind of irrelevant
 
cullennz said:
Not that much with mammals
Click to expand...

Please post something that expresses a full thought. It is often extremely difficult to understand what you are talking about.

I don't know if this is laziness on your part or if you are just trying to avoid committing to any ideas.

Are you trying to say that in the vast majority of mammals, males catch the food, and females raise children and that because this is true of so many mammals, humans must also behave like those mammals?

If that is your argument, it is ridiculous. Which mammals use language? Hardly any, if any! Does this commit us to giving up language for purposes of communication? Answer: No!
Which mammals wear clothes? Apart from those dogs that are dressed up by humans to look like Sherlock Holmes? Answer: None! So what?
Which mammals cook their food? Which mammals have built space rockets? Which mammals can write? Which mammals play sports? Which mammals have orchestras? Which mammals discuss gender roles on internet forums?

None!


Or do you want to go full Jordan Peterson and start waffling about lobsters next?
 
angrysoba said:
Please post something that expresses a full thought. It is often extremely difficult to understand what you are talking about.

I don't know if this is laziness on your part or if you are just trying to avoid committing to any ideas.

Are you trying to say that in the vast majority of mammals, males catch the food, and females raise children and that because this is true of so many mammals, humans must also behave like those mammals?

If that is your argument, it is ridiculous. Which mammals use language? Hardly any, if any! Does this commit us to giving up language for purposes of communication? Answer: No!
Which mammals wear clothes? Apart from those dogs that are dressed up by humans to look like Sherlock Holmes? Answer: None! So what?
Which mammals cook their food? Which mammals have built space rockets? Which mammals can write? Which mammals play sports? Which mammals have orchestras? Which mammals discuss gender roles on internet forums?

None!


Or do you want to go full Jordan Peterson and start waffling about lobsters next?
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one that brought mammals into the conversation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom