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

[theprestige]

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

And heaven knows what you consider Person C to be, on the same observational basis.


Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.


It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

Why should he make anything of it?

Why should changes to your own perception of your "internal lived condition" be binding or even meaningful to anyone else? You're entitled to think of yourself however you want. And I'm entitled to think of you however I want.

 

[theprestige]

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

What's weird is that more and more, nobody cares how males dress. The biggest push for the importance of gendered wardrobes is coming from religious cranks... and trans-activists. Trans-activists who will tell you that gender presentation is a super-important part of avoiding extreme detriment to the mental health of transsexuals... Right up to the moment when they suddenly turn around and insist that gender presentation is totally irrelevant to being transsexual.

 

[The Atheist]

Social change is generally pushed by a vocal minority that makes a strong effort to change the course of public opinion, or put pressure on policymakers, or both.

Yep, and it looks like an incredibly small vocal minority has used that to enable a trampling of rights of 50% of the population.

And see my sig.

 

[LondonJohn]

So... it's not fixed and immutable, an inherent and unambigous truth of a person? It is something that can change over time?

Where does that put thopse who have detransitioned? Did they change their minds? Or did their gender shift over time from their natal sex to the opposite and then back again?

What are the consequences of gender NOT being fixed and immutable, when it comes to the current approach of gender-affirmation-only approaches by the medical industry, and the propensity to prescribe puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and genital surgery? If gender is NOT fixed and immutable, then these are approaches that can ostensibly cause significant bodily harm including sterility. Is it appropriate to pursue such irreversible and harmful approaches if one's gender identity can change over time?



The problem is that it puts an obligation on outside observers - who have zero insight into a person's mind - to change society and our own behaviors in order to accommodate this 100% internal thing.

It's tantamount to a devout christian saying that they know god is real in their hearts... and therefore all of the rest of us must convert to their belief and pray to their god.

No: it means that all of the rest of us must accommodate their belief and their right to observe their religion without discrimination.

Same applies to transgender identity. But the structural failure in your analogy does at least go further to expose some of the underlying issues informing your opinions on transgender rights.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why should he make anything of it?

Why should changes to your own perception of your "internal lived condition" be binding or even meaningful to anyone else? You're entitled to think of yourself however you want. And I'm entitled to think of you however I want.

And - where it comes to matters of gender identity - you're obliged to allow me to be treated as a person residing wherever on the gender spectrum I ask to be treated, without discrimination.

This really isn't too difficult.

 

[LondonJohn]

A, B, and C are all MALE. Their own beliefs about themselves and their internal state doesn't change that in the least. How they dress makes absolutely zero difference to that.

I have no idea what the (correct) observation that they're all male has to do with discussions about trans-identity (and more specifically, discussions about the differences between visual presentation and gender identity where it comes to transvestism vs transgenderism).

 

[LondonJohn]

Just to clarify... Your view here suggests that you feel that any male who proclaims themselves to be a woman must by obligation be accepted by their claim as being a woman, yes? That their claim alone is all it takes?

From where exactly in my post have you derived the inference that I blindly adhere to the concept of self-ID?

Because I most certainly made no such implication.

However, since you ask, I personally believe that some form of validation process would be a good thing going forward. I can also understand the wishes of the more hardline end of transactivism in calling for unfettered self-ID. But I personally think that some of the ramifications of editing or changing one's gender do probably call for a level of official recognisation (noting in the process that, for example, self-ID of sexuality carries nowhere near as many significant ramifications).

And I think that this issue - together with the issue of transwomen in elite women's sports - should probably be hills that transgender people and trans rights campaigners choose to surrender rather than die upon, at least in the short- and medium-term.


(Still wondering quite how you managed to see what you thought was my opinion on self-ID in that particular post...)

 

[LondonJohn]

Executive orders are not an instrument or process for passing things into law.

This executive order was absolutely the right instrument/process for the new Executive Administration* to implement its desired policies within the bounds of the law already passed, and within the bounds of the authority of the Executive branch.

Executive orders are merely an instruction from the President, to the agencies under his authority, for how they are to interpret and apply the laws they are charged with interpreting and applying.

Passing things into law is an entirely separate process, over which the office of the President has very little influence or control.**
---
*Not "the new US Government", which is actually a tripartite system with each part renewing at different rates and to different degrees.

**The one thing the President can do about lawmaking, ex cathedra, is sign into law the bills passed by the legislature. This is a veto power, which the legislature can override with a supermajority.

Ah OK - I didn't realise that US Presidential executive orders conveyed no legislative powers (we have nothing even remotely similar in UK). Thanks for educating me.

 

[theprestige]

I have no idea what the (correct) observation that they're all male has to do with discussions about trans-identity (and more specifically, discussions about the differences between visual presentation and gender identity where it comes to transvestism vs transgenderism).

Apparently not even trans-activists have any idea what the correct observation of biological sex has to do with transsexuality. Not even when it's explained to them in plain language, repeatedly.

 

[theprestige]

And - where it comes to matters of gender identity - you're obliged to allow me to be treated as a person residing wherever on the gender spectrum I ask to be treated, without discrimination.

This really isn't too difficult.

I'm sorry, "obliged to allow"? "Without discrimination"?

I think it really is kind of difficult, as this thread shows.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No: it means that all of the rest of us must accommodate their belief and their right to observe their religion without discrimination.

Same applies to transgender identity. But the structural failure in your analogy does at least go further to expose some of the underlying issues informing your opinions on transgender rights.

That's the problem. And it's one you seem unable to see.

EVERYONE ELSE IS OBLIGATED TO ACCOMODATE THEIR BELIEF

Run that through your head for a bit, in different context of belief. Pick a different belief, and see how well that works.

If a person sincerely believes that women shouldn't show their hair in public... what does accommodating that belief mean? Does it mean that we allow women who adhere to that belief to cover their hair voluntarily? Well, yes, probably. Does it mean that we allow men who adhere to that belief to force women in their families to adhere to that belief and cover their hair whether those women believe that or not? That gets trickier, but in practice we often let that one slide. Does it mean that society as a whole must obligate all women to cover their hair? That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it?

Let's take it out of the realm of religion though, and substitute a different belief. If a person sincerely believes that they are disabled, should society as a whole accommodate their belief by allowing them to use disabled parking stalls and services? What if by doing so, that means that a person who actually IS disabled, rather than falsely believing themselves to be disabled, is denied a service? Would it be reasonable to accommodate their belief in such a way?

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, since you ask, I personally believe that some form of validation process would be a good thing going forward. I can also understand the wishes of the more hardline end of transactivism in calling for unfettered self-ID. But I personally think that some of the ramifications of editing or changing one's gender do probably call for a level of official recognisation (noting in the process that, for example, self-ID of sexuality carries nowhere near as many significant ramifications).

And I think that this issue - together with the issue of transwomen in elite women's sports - should probably be hills that transgender people and trans rights campaigners choose to surrender rather than die upon, at least in the short- and medium-term.

Okay. Setting aside what other people might want, and looking at this only from your personal perspective: Why do you believe that some form of a validation process is appropriate?

 

[Rolfe]

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

 

[Aber]

And on Biden, there appears to have been a hysterical reaction in certain quarters

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not abstract in the slightest - only in your own thinking.

You may be confused about what "abstract" means.

But it's interesting and informative to witness how you and others here are focussing purely on observable externalities wrt this matter.

Let's try another approach:

Person A is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person A considers himself to be a man. Person A is a transvestite man.

Person B is a male who likes to wear dresses, high heels, lipstick and a long blonde wig in public. Person B considers herself to be a woman. Person B is a transwoman.

Person C is a male who likes to wear jeans, t-shirts and Converse trainers in public. Person C considers herself to be a woman. Person C is a transwoman.


What you appear to be arguing is that Person A and Person B are effectively the same thing - purely on what you observe about their known biological sex and their external visual presentation to you.

Person A and Person B exhibit the same behavior, as described. If the only difference is their self conception, well, guess what? Self-conception divorced from behavior is abstract.

Yet it's entirely logical and feasible for somebody matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person B's characteristics. You, however, appear to be arguing that such a transition is more-or-less meaningless (to you, that is), purely on the basis that they "both look the same" to you.

A change that only involves self-conception IS meaningless to me. It may not be meaningless to that person, but I have no actual access to that person's self-conception.

And you seem to have lost track of where this started. Emily said she couldn't see a rational difference between Eddie the transvestite and Eddie the transgender. You objected to this. But your objections have all fallen flat. There is no rational difference. There may be an arational (which is not the same as irrational) difference for how Eddie conceptualizes that, and it may matter to Eddie, but why would any of the rest of us care? Never once have you even suggested a reason, except to accuse others of bigotry and hatred. But it's not hatred to not care about abstract distinctions which don't describe any behavioral differences.

It's also entirely logical and feasible, by the way, for someone matching Person A's characteristics to undergo a change in their own internal lived condition, into being somebody matching Person C's characteristics. Heaven knows what you'd make of that, though.

What would I make of that? I wouldn't care. Why should I? Why, according to you, must I?

 

[Ziggurat]

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

We've already seen that, with Boudicca denouncing John earlier in the thread.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even John, who comes over as a hard-line trans-activist, proposes checks and balances and restrictions that the real trans-activists would vehemently insist were degrading, dehumanising and absolutely out of the question. It's quite the conundrum. He thinks he's on their side, and he vilifies women who raise the slightest protest against his own proposals, but the real trans-activists would most certainly revile him as a TERF.

It pains me to say it, but I still think there's a subconscious bias in there that allows males to have partial support and still be viewed as allies, whereas females are required to roll over and take it completely or risk being labeled and vilified.

 

[Ziggurat]

It pains me to say it, but I still think there's a subconscious bias in there that allows males to have partial support and still be viewed as allies, whereas females are required to roll over and take it completely or risk being labeled and vilified.

I think you're right, but the explanation may not be simply sexism (though that might contribute). I think there's an element that's similar to the vitriol that, say, black conservatives get above and beyond white conservatives.

If you're part of an in group that's supposed to support a specific ideology, then deviations from that ideology by members of that in group are treated as more of a threat than deviations by people not in that in group. The reasons for that are pretty obvious in terms of maintaining group cohesion to that ideology. Blacks are supposed to be Democrats. Women are supposed to fight against the patriarchy and sexual discrimination of any sort. They are in groups in regards to these ideologies. Your deviation is thus less tolerable than mine. It's not fair, but it's almost inevitable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think you're right, but the explanation may not be simply sexism (though that might contribute). I think there's an element that's similar to the vitriol that, say, black conservatives get above and beyond white conservatives.

If you're part of an in group that's supposed to support a specific ideology, then deviations from that ideology by members of that in group are treated as more of a threat than deviations by people not in that in group. The reasons for that are pretty obvious in terms of maintaining group cohesion to that ideology. Blacks are supposed to be Democrats. Women are supposed to fight against the patriarchy and sexual discrimination of any sort. They are in groups in regards to these ideologies. Your deviation is thus less tolerable than mine. It's not fair, but it's almost inevitable.

Good point. I'm going to have to go ahead and say that the TRAs are a bit wrong-headed about this. In your excellent analogy, black people who are conservative get crap because it is felt that they are betraying black people. If the same were applied here, one would say that women who don't kowtow to the trans agenda get crap because they aren't supporting other women.

And that's where it falls apart. A black conservative is still black, regardless of their politics and their value schema. But, as mentioned by the thread title... Transwomen are not women.

This whole situation is more like white democrats coming down on black democrats because the black democrats aren't being supportive enough of the feelings of white democrats.

 

[theprestige]

I think the calculus is that women are a minority, and should be helping lift up other minorities, not pulling up the ladder and saying "I got mine; up yours."