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

[cullennz]

They were specifically given the right to vote as females.

Ask Kate Sheppard and the blokes who voted to allow it

 

[Upchurch]

What I think is that there is a fair bit of confusion stemming from imprecise terminology.

What I think is that in thread #2, we apparently had no problem understanding that the terms “male” and “female” are related to sex and “man” and “woman” are related to gender, but here in thread #5 we are insisting that “woman” is both sex and gender and I am being asked to justify why the concept of gender should even exist at all.

I don’t think we got past this in thread #2 at all.

 

[angrysoba]

They were specifically given the right to vote as females.

Ask Kate Sheppard and the blokes who voted to allow it

Okay, I'll ask Kate Sheppard and the blokes...

...Okay, I asked them.

They said the reason why they wanted to be given the right to vote as females is because they had initially been denied the vote on the grounds that they were females.

That's what they told me. So I am right and you are wrong.

 

[angrysoba]

What I think is that in thread #2, we apparently had no problem understanding that the terms “male” and “female” are related to sex and “man” and woman” are related to gender, but here in thread #5 we are insisting that “woman” is both sex and gender and I am being asked to justify why the concept of gender should even exist at all.

I don’t think we got past this in thread #2 at all.

Honestly, the only people I have seen doing that are Boudicca and cullennz, and that is for a different reasons.

It would be nice if you could spell out your position.

 

[cullennz]

Okay, I'll ask Kate Sheppard and the blokes...

...Okay, I asked them.

They said the reason why they wanted to be given the right to vote as females is because they had initially been denied the vote on the grounds that they were females.

That's what they told me. So I am right and you are wrong.

No it isn't

They were denied for being female

 

[angrysoba]

Okay, I'll ask Kate Sheppard and the blokes...

...Okay, I asked them.

They said the reason why they wanted to be given the right to vote as females is because they had initially been denied the vote on the grounds that they were females.

That's what they told me. So I am right and you are wrong.

No it isn't

They were denied for being female

There seems to be an echo in here.

You been drinking?

 

[angrysoba]

Edited by Darat: 

Off topic posts moved to AAH

Could you explain this...

They said the reason why they wanted to be given the right to vote as females is because they had initially been denied the vote on the grounds that they were females.
That's what they told me. So I am right and you are wrong.

No it isn't

They were denied for being female

...

How are you contradicting me when you are saying exactly the same damn thing?

The point is that women were denied the vote on the basis that they were female.

Women have not been granted rights on the basis of being female. They have been denied rights on those grounds!

And even if they had been granted rights on those grounds, the fact remains that rights themselves are not things that other mammals have.

The whole argument takes place within the domain of social rights and responsibilities.

 

[Upchurch]

Honestly, the only people I have seen doing that are Boudicca and cullennz, and that is for a different reasons.

Let me help. These are from the last few pages.

"Man" and "woman" are kinds of biological sex.

When did we start using the word "gender" anyway?

Why don't you explain why we need genders.

Gender is a descriptive and/or prescriptive distinction derived from biological reality?

You just defined gender twice but called them different things.

It would be nice if you could spell out your position.

I have been. I defined my terms, explained how they are consistent with the traditional western understanding of genders, and everything. My next step was to explain how it is also consistent with other gender systems, but folks seem to think I’m trying to trap or insult them by providing a framework that is comprehensive of more than just one system.

 

[Dismember]

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.

Not to confuse the issue further, but I’m kind of in the opposite camp here with sex/gender making sense separately. I spent most of my life thinking of sex/gender as synonyms.

At some point well into adulthood I became aware of a distinction:
sex — referring to physical anatomy (male or female)
gender presentation — referring to behavior — i.e., how one chooses to dress and present themselves (masculine or feminine)

Until the Leela Alcorn thread, I had never heard of this concept of “gender” all by itself as an entirely separate, undefinable, internal “essence”. And this is where it loses me, because this is where, to my view, it becomes indistinguishable from a soul, and the whole thing leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of a deeply held subjective belief.

Like most of the participants here, I’m willing to oblige that belief in the majority of circumstances. But I’m not okay with being legally compelled to oblige someone else’s internal belief, especially since I do think this concept is causing harm to other groups (as justification for puberty blockers/hormones/surgery to children and young teens, for example) and also because I am presently convinced that it is woo. No one should be legally forced to agree (or pretend to agree) that woo is true and correct.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

I think this maybe sums up why we disagree and with a few minor edits we might be able to find a common ground.

I don't think declaring a transwoman a 'real' woman requires you to give up a basis for not including them. I think it requires you to give up a basis for excluding them a priori.

My basic position is that generally nobody should be excluded from ANYTHING without good reason.

This then puts the onus on people who want to exclude transwomen from female spaces to justify it. Some people here have found that position troubling (i don't know why as yet).

We are no doubt going to disagree in many cases on what 'good reason to exclude' is going to mean and no doubt we will go round in circles on that one yet again as you claim that possession of a penis is OBVIOUSLY good reason to exclude transwomen from locker rooms and shared hotel rooms and anyone who disagrees is just being ridiculous.

What is clear from these 5 threads is that the anti-trans posters are pretty damn well entrenched in their positions and will find any edge case or random anecdote they can to justify their positions. And that a bunch of largely reactionary old white men are going to keep pretending to really really care about women only shortlists for town councils and girl's high school sports if it helps them win an argument.

 

[Darat]

Keep to the topic of this thread which is not earthquakes.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I am presently convinced that it is woo. No one should be legally forced to agree (or pretend to agree) that woo is true and correct.

What reason do you have to believe it is woo when the vast majority of experts who study it disagree with you?

 

[Darat]

Not to confuse the issue further, but I’m kind of in the opposite camp here with sex/gender making sense separately. I spent most of my life thinking of sex/gender as synonyms.

At some point well into adulthood I became aware of a distinction:
sex — referring to physical anatomy (male or female)
gender presentation — referring to behavior — i.e., how one chooses to dress and present themselves (masculine or feminine)

Until the Leela Alcorn thread, I had never heard of this concept of “gender” all by itself as an entirely separate, undefinable, internal “essence”. And this is where it loses me, because this is where, to my view, it becomes indistinguishable from a soul, and the whole thing leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of a deeply held subjective belief.

Like most of the participants here, I’m willing to oblige that belief in the majority of circumstances. But I’m not okay with being legally compelled to oblige someone else’s internal belief, especially since I do think this concept is causing harm to other groups (as justification for puberty blockers/hormones/surgery to children and young teens, for example) and also because I am presently convinced that it is woo. No one should be legally forced to agree (or pretend to agree) that woo is true and correct.

No one is being forced by any legislation in place or proposed to force you to believe in “woo”.

The legislation that exists, for example in the UK, gives criteria that must be met to have your M or F on official documents changed. Other legislation (and some proposed amendments to existing legislation) prevents people from being discriminated against in many areas of life (for example, housing, employment and education) because they are trans.

Which “woo” does the above force you to agree with?

 

[Butter!]

No it isn't

They were denied for being female

Wtf, you guys are making me so confused I have a headache.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My basic position is that generally nobody should be excluded from ANYTHING without good reason.

This then puts the onus on people who want to exclude transwomen from female spaces to justify it. Some people here have found that position troubling (i don't know why as yet).

Well yeah but that only works because you start at one arbitrary place and start arguing the point.

Okay let us be very, very clear here. Transgenderism is NOT about inclusion and I'm running out of patience with the idea that is being the main source of moral superiority coming that side.

Transgenderism is about special exceptions to ingrained... err disinclusion or whatever the exact opposite of inclusion is.

Ted, Steve, Mary, and Janet want to compete in the 100 Yard Dash for the world record.

We already split Ted and Steve AND Mary and Janet into two seperate groups.

The transgender argument is that maybe one of them should get to compete in the other group because of an exception because they are a special category.

You can't bang your own drum about inclusion when all you are doing is arguing for a special exception to broader non-inclusion. That's not inclusion.

And to be clear that doesn't inherently make anywhere we draw the line right or wrong, it just means you can (and others) can't roll into these discussion under the assumption that transgenderism is just by declarative fiat the most "inclusive" and therefore correct answer.

It is not inclusive because it depends on ingrained segregation of the sexes to begin to even make sense.

If Martin Luther King or Rosa Park had rolled into the national spotlight in the 60s with their brilliant plan to solve racism by going "Okay we keep the separate water fountains but we solve the problem by just letting everyone pick which race they are" nobody would be gushing over their progressive stance on inclusion today.

 

[Butter!]

There seems to be an echo in here.

You been drinking?

I think I'm gonna start.

 

[angrysoba]

I think I'm gonna start.

I don't blame you.

 

[Butter!]

Not to confuse the issue further, but I’m kind of in the opposite camp here with sex/gender making sense separately. I spent most of my life thinking of sex/gender as synonyms.

At some point well into adulthood I became aware of a distinction:
sex — referring to physical anatomy (male or female)
gender presentation — referring to behavior — i.e., how one chooses to dress and present themselves (masculine or feminine)

Until the Leela Alcorn thread, I had never heard of this concept of “gender” all by itself as an entirely separate, undefinable, internal “essence”. And this is where it loses me, because this is where, to my view, it becomes indistinguishable from a soul, and the whole thing leaves the realm of science and enters the realm of a deeply held subjective belief.

Like most of the participants here, I’m willing to oblige that belief in the majority of circumstances. But I’m not okay with being legally compelled to oblige someone else’s internal belief, especially since I do think this concept is causing harm to other groups (as justification for puberty blockers/hormones/surgery to children and young teens, for example) and also because I am presently convinced that it is woo. No one should be legally forced to agree (or pretend to agree) that woo is true and correct.

Oh yeah, for sure. For most of my life, "gender" was just the term people used when they didn't want to say the sex-word, but the meaning was identical.

Then, way back in 2011, I took a sociology class which focused on a lot of gender themes. I already knew what trans-people were at that time, obviously, but my understanding was limited. I thought they all wanted surgery, for example, and I definitely didn't really know how all the underlying philosophy worked.

So anyway, I was taught that the trans issue is best understood if one separates the concepts of sex and gender, and views them as two different things that are intertwined for the majority of people (but not for trans people). I don't remember if non-binary or any of that side of things was mentioned at this time. I don't think it was.

The sex-gender differentiation more or less made sense to me, because my mind is capable of tolerating abstractions. But it isn't capable of processing what it sees as illogical contradictions. Separating gender and sex worked with an internal logic, but fusing them back together does not (with regard to trans issues, I mean). Now I have no idea how to understand any of it.

All that being said, as I noted earlier, it's ultimately not that important for me to understand. It's frustrating to see how polarized and odd this discussion gets, but it isn't something in which I want to get deeply involved. It's not worth it - I see points worth arguing about, but the price of doing so is looking like a bigot and alienating people. That's not worth it to me.


ETA - Also, you're right that the gender concept is quite abstract, but when I learned about it, I didn't quite see the need to invoke souls either. I merely viewed the genders as socially created categories that seem to be a part of current human society regardless of what we call them or how we conceptualize them. If a person happens to really strongly identify with one or the other, to the point that he/she wants to live as the sex most commonly connected to that gender, then that person is trans. We really didn't get into the legal side of things much back then. It was more about tolerance and gaining understanding.

 

[Upchurch]

Oh yeah, for sure. [snip]

I agree with most, but not all, of this. I don't understand how the concept of a soul got mixed in. When I refer to identity, I'm referring to something specific in psychology.

I consider a soul to be a metaphysical construct that religious people believe have an timeless existence separate from the physical body. By definition, that would exclude the possibility of a physical sex. Off the top of my head, I can't remember reading any religious philosopher who specifically attributed a gender to a metaphysical soul, but my only religious philosophy class in college was Medieval Philosophy. I'm no expert, but I would think that if anyone would be inclined to attribute a predestined gender to a soul, it'd be the Catholics.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I agree with most, but not all, of this. I don't understand how the concept of a soul got mixed in.

It got mixed in to point a light on the fact that you are trying to stretch the concept of "gender" way beyond the medical/sociological definition of it to encompass this vague, undefined idea of a purely internal, neither biological or social, "gender identity" that exists as this concrete concept.

You are trying to turn "What sex/gender I want to be" into some form of objective difference.