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

[d4m10n]

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.

First of all, why would you object to being asked to specify exactly what you mean by gender and why you think it's a useful concept? It would provide us all insight into what you're driving at, especially since "gender" can be shorthand for gender expression, gender roles, gender norms, or gender identity.

Secondly, you have to know that many (if not most) native speakers of English still use "woman" in the traditional way, that is, an adult female person. So maybe cut people a bit of slack when they revert to common usage. It is, by the way, relatively widespread to refer to the two most common gender expressions and roles as "masculine" and "feminine" rather than "man" and "woman" so as to make it clear we're talking about sociology rather than biology.

Finally, I’d be interested in your take on whether it makes sense to allow individuals who have experienced male puberty to compete in high level sport against those who have not, prior to any hormone treatments. This will help me understand whether you believe self-i.d. should be the sole criterion across the board, in all human endeavors, as Boudicca evidently does.

 

[Butter!]

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.

I was responding to Dismember. He/she said it was difficult to understand gender without invoking a type of soul or essence. I said I didn't see it that way.

 

[Upchurch]

I was responding to Dismember. He/she said it was difficult to understand gender without invoking a type of soul or essence. I said I didn't see it that way.

Sorry, that was aimed at the over all conversation, not to your post in particular.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Just straight up straw man arguments, then?.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Just straight up straw man arguments, then?.

Again I'm still waiting on you to define "gender" in anyway that isn't "A magical word that means the transperson is always correct."

Until then your name calling of my argument is meaningless.

 

[Paul2]

?????

What a weird riposte!

Better at what?

Where. Did. You. Get. That?

Wait, don't tell me, I'd rather not know.

 

[Elaedith]

I was responding to Dismember. He/she said it was difficult to understand gender without invoking a type of soul or essence. I said I didn't see it that way.

It's possible to understand gender without invoking this, but current definitions of gender tend to divide it into gender identity and gender expression.

Gender expression is observable and can be operationalised, although what counts as expressing gender is obviously open to debate.

Gender essentialists always end up stressing identity rather than expression. They do this because to base gender on expression obviously implies that they want definitions of 'man' and 'woman' to be based on conformity to what is considered appropriate gender expression. To dodge this they propose that identity is something distinct that an be used to separate trans individuals from those who are merely gender non-conforming. But identity is then divorced from anything directly observable and cannot be examined, questioned or verified. There are no other circumstances where an internal feeling or self-perception takes precedence over anything and everything verifiable and measurable. Granting it this status requires reification, in turn implying the existence of something soul-like.

The reification of gender identity comes from postmodern queer theory exploited for political leverage.

 

[Upchurch]

First of all, why would you object to being asked to specify exactly what you mean by gender and why you think it's a useful concept? It would provide us all insight into what you're driving at, especially since "gender" can be shorthand for gender expression, gender roles, gender norms, or gender identity.

I have been specifying that, at least as far as gender vs gender roles. That part that irks me is the insistence (and I'm not aiming this specifically at you) that most of this has already been covered and settled, when clearly it hasn't been.

Secondly, you have to know that many (if not most) native speakers of English still use "woman" in the traditional way, that is, an adult female person. So maybe cut people a bit of slack when they revert to common usage. It is, by the way, relatively widespread to refer to the two most common gender expressions and roles as "masculine" and "feminine" rather than "man" and "woman" so as to make it clear we're talking about sociology rather than biology.

The whole point is that the traditional culture and language evolves over time. It isn't like I haven't gone out of my way to distinguish what I'm talking about and demonstrate that it is applicable to the traditional western gender system and can allow for the alternative systems that exist in the world.

It's like trying to explain how Buddhism is a religion to a Christian and getting nothing but "That doesn't make any sense. Christianity is a real religion" in return.

Finally, I’d be interested in your take on whether it makes sense to allow individuals who have experienced male puberty to compete in high level sport against those who have not, prior to any hormone treatments.

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow. Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

Honestly, are we arguing that we should not study and understand sociology because it might lead to tough questions that could impact an entertainment industry?

 

[Upchurch]

Again I'm still waiting on you to define "gender" in anyway that isn't "A magical word that means the transperson is always correct."

Until then your name calling of my argument is meaningless.

I did. Using my definition, if the culture defines "woman" based explicitly on biological sex, then the transwoman is not a woman in that culture.

 

[Meadmaker]

I have been. I defined my terms,

No, you didn't. You defined "gender", and then you said that "man" and "woman" were examples of genders.



A mammal is an animal that feeds its young with milk produced in the female's body.

A dog is a mammal.

I have defined mammal. I haven't defined dog.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I did. Using my definition, if the culture defines "woman" based explicitly on biological sex, then the transwoman is not a woman in that culture.

Yeah until you change your definition again which you will have to do because you're created a paradox where objective facts have to exist against personal perception and we have to pretend they can never contradict even when they absolutely do.

Let's look at it this way. Give me a scenario, any scenario, in which a person says "I am this gender" and they are wrong.

It's basic falsifiability. If a statement can never be wrong, it's not meaningful.

 

[Meadmaker]

I did. Using my definition, if the culture defines "woman" based explicitly on biological sex, then the transwoman is not a woman in that culture.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are saying that your definition of "man" is "whatever a culture decides 'man' means."

Seems circular to me, and therefore meaningless.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are saying that your definition of "man" is "whatever a culture decides 'man' means."

Seems circular to me, and therefore meaningless.

I'd also love to square that with any concept of what the individual person claim as to their gender is supposed to mean or matter.

Basically all we've agreed on is that both sex and gender are determined 3rd party, not 1st party. Sex is biology which cares not for our opinions and gender is socially/culturally determined.

I'm stilling trying to figure out where the "Sense of identity" slots in anywhere here.

 

[Meadmaker]

I literally could not care less about that sacred cow. Maybe, instead of gender, sports should be broken out by weight classes, like boxing?

Honestly, are we arguing that we should not study and understand sociology because it might lead to tough questions that could impact an entertainment industry?

And you are exhibiting a very frequent pattern that we see in these threads, again and again. Someone argues that this will have a negative impact on female athletic participation, and someone else replies, "Who cares?"

 

[Upchurch]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems you are saying that your definition of "man" is "whatever a culture decides 'man' means."

Seems circular to me, and therefore meaningless.

Yes, that is roughly my definition of "man" is. Just like culture decides what other things mean. In the 80s, "bad" could mean good. Today, "sick" can mean amazing or incredible.

Not all cultures define their genders in the same way. If we can't even agree on that one demonstrable fact, there is no way to move the discussion forward.

 

[Olmstead]

Sports have always been divided based on sex anyway. It has never been gender, no matter the definition.

It's just that for some reason certain people went: "Nuh-uh, it's divided based on gender."

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sports have always been divided based on sex anyway. It has never been gender, no matter the definition.

It's just that for some reason certain people went: "Nuh-uh, it's divided based on gender."

This is another point that just literally never gets addressed.

When did decide that everything was split up by gender and not sex?

Again wouldn't that solve the problem?

That way Boudicca can scream "But I'm a woman! In literally every situation!" and we can just go "Okay. Bathrooms and sports are male/female, not man/woman."

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, that is roughly my definition of "man" is. Just like culture decides what other things mean. In the 80s, "bad" could mean good. Today, "sick" can mean amazing or incredible.

Not all cultures define their genders in the same way. If we can't even agree on that one demonstrable fact, there is no way to move the discussion forward.

Considering where the conversation would go if we agreed on that one demonstrable fact, I think we are also using a different definition of "forward".

 

[Ziggurat]

This is another point that just literally never gets addressed.

When did decide that everything was split up by gender and not sex?

Again wouldn't that solve the problem?

That way Boudicca can scream "But I'm a woman! In literally every situation!" and we can just go "Okay. Bathrooms and sports are male/female, not man/woman."

No, it wouldn't solve the problem. Boudicca doesn't simply say that she is a woman. Boudicca says she is female.

There are fundamentally incompatible goals here, which disagreements over terminology are only a proxy for and which agreeing on terminology won't actually fix. And by incompatible goals I don't mean Boudicca getting to use the women's bathroom. I think most people are willing to let that happen for her, in most cases. But that isn't enough for her. It's not enough that an exception be made for her because she's met some criteria. Boudicca explicitly wants there to be no criteria at all, and to not be an exception. And that's not even getting into sports, which ironically Boudicca doesn't actually care about except that she wants no restrictions on that either.

 

[Olmstead]

This is another point that just literally never gets addressed.

When did decide that everything was split up by gender and not sex?

Again wouldn't that solve the problem?

That way Boudicca can scream "But I'm a woman! In literally every situation!" and we can just go "Okay. Bathrooms and sports are male/female, not man/woman."

To be fair, bathrooms and locker rooms are a little more iffy, as the segregation itself is in many ways tied to culture.

But sports? Clear biological rationale. None of those namby-pamby feelings. Science!