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

[Sherkeu]

If you go out and look for accusations against liberals, I'm sure you'll find whatever you're looking for on propaganda sites. So if you haven't already seen it, and all you have to offer is a promise to go searching for it, I probably won't be convinced.

Then why don't we look to a liberal that you think has got it right in terms of the criteria for presentation. If it is far-fetched to insinuate that they are rallying for no specific gate-keeping in determination, whether medical or in presentation, then what are the criteria?

What is it past self-ID that would be required?

 

[Collin237]

I'm asking you if it's worth the effort for me to find an example of what you're talking about.

If you mean something for me to comment on, then of course, we all do it, why make a fuss about asking permission?

If you mean something you expect me to accept as true without question, then no. This is a Skeptic forum after all.

 

[theprestige]

Then why don't we look to a liberal that you think has got it right in terms of the criteria for presentation. If it is far-fetched to insinuate that they are rallying for no specific gate-keeping in determination, whether medical or in presentation, then what are the criteria?

What is it past self-ID that would be required?

TBH I kinda hate these arguments-by-proxy and arguments-by-transfer-to-scapegoats.

I'd much rather Colin tell us what they themselves think the criteria should be, and why they think that.

 

[theprestige]

If you mean something for me to comment on, then of course, we all do it, why make a fuss about asking permission?

If you mean something you expect me to accept as true without question, then no. This is a Skeptic forum after all.

I'm not asking for permission. I'm asking what criteria you're actually looking for, here.

 

[Collin237]

Then why don't we look to a liberal that you think has got it right in terms of the criteria for presentation. If it is far-fetched to insinuate that they are rallying for no specific gate-keeping in determination, whether medical or in presentation, then what are the criteria?

What is it past self-ID that would be required?

I think there should be some set of criteria, but I have no basis for setting up a list of my own. As to where such a list could be drawn from, I believe it would have to be a legal theory, not a social-political theory.

Is there any jurisdiction, anywhere in the world, where self-ID is in operation? If so, find out how it's implemented there. If not, it's just idle speculation.

 

[theprestige]

I was under the impression that a self-ID system was already in place in some countries?

Well there you go then. Bringing it full circle:

The current push is that in order to be transgender, a person shouldn't need to present as their identified gender, nor should they need to undergo any treatment of any sort, right? Thus, a person who is fully male-bodied, and who has a beard, and who doesn't wear makeup or heels, but who self-identifies as a woman should be accepted at their word as a woman.

Obviously that's what the extremists claim in order to make fun of the idea. Do you have evidence of any actual liberal saying such a thing?

We don't need evidence of any actual liberal saying such a thing. You yourself believe such a thing is already policy in some places. It's not extremists making fun of the idea. It's the idea itself actually being implemented in some countries already.

I guess you were wrong and need to modify your position.

 

[d4m10n]

In my opinion that is just a slight variation on "identifies as women", and I think it's flawed as well.

In your opinion, does my definition invoke subjective personal identity?

 

[Sherkeu]

TBH I kinda hate these arguments-by-proxy and arguments-by-transfer-to-scapegoats.

I'd much rather Colin tell us what they themselves think the criteria should be, and why they think that.

Ideally. I guess I was thinking of someone he/she agreed with perhaps having a well-thought out viewpoint on policies that could anchor the conversation.
It's a hard to plainly follow what is even being argued.

 

[Collin237]

I didn't say I "believe". I said I was "under the impression"; i.e., I thought, fallibilistically, that I remembered reading it somewhere.

There are only a few hundred countries in the world. It's an empirical question, does any of them have a self-ID system? I am a scientific realist; I do not stake out positions of opinion on empirically verifiable facts.

My position is:
1. Self-ID with criteria is possible.
2. Self-ID without criteria is highly improbable.

 

[theprestige]

It's a hard to plainly follow what is even being argued.

That I can help with. Emily's Cat is arguing that there is a push to make Self-ID the de jure standard for qualification as a transwoman.

Collin237 is arguing that this is hyperbole employed by anti-trans extremists to poison the well. He's also arguing that no "actual liberal" is advocating any such idea. He's also now arguing that such ideas have not only been advocated, but actually implemented as public policy in some countries.

 

[theprestige]

I didn't say I "believe". I said I was "under the impression"; i.e., I thought, fallibilistically, that I remembered reading it somewhere.

There are only a few hundred countries in the world. It's an empirical question, does any of them have a self-ID system? I am a scientific realist; I do not stake out positions of opinion on empirically verifiable facts.

My position is:
1. Self-ID with criteria is possible.
2. Self-ID without criteria is highly improbable.

What criteria do you think make sense, for a Self-ID policy?

 

[Collin237]

I am not arguing that anything has actually been.

I AM A SCIENTIFIC REALIST!!!!! Do you know what that means?

IT IS AN EMPIRICAL QUESTION!!!!! Do you know what that means?

Why are you playing games with me?????

 

[Collin237]

What criteria do you think make sense, for a Self-ID policy?

How the **** should I know? I'm not a lawyer!

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I am also confused by this exchange.

Self-ID law exists in Canada. It requires a filling out paperwork to have official IDs changed. As far as I can tell, the sky-falling prophesized by the transphobic panic-mongerers never happened.

 

[d4m10n]

There are only a few hundred countries in the world. It's an empirical question, does any of them have a self-ID system?

According to this post (from earlier in this very thread) California already has such a system.

 

[Meadmaker]

In your opinion, does my definition invoke subjective personal identity?

No, but it substitutes a subjective societal identity, and it's equally circular.

The other definition: A person is a woman if she identifies as a women.
Your definition: A person is a woman if she acts the way society expects women to act.

Or "is expected" to act the way society expects women to act. So in your definition, a person is a woman if they are expected to behave in a feminine manner, with "feminine" being defined as the way society expects women to behave.

So, that person with the penis over there is expected to watch a lot of football on Sunday afternoons, but instead they sit glued to the Hallmark Channel. Does your definition help determine if they are a woman or not?


ETA: Let me get it as close to your precise wording as I can.

A woman is a person who is expected to behave in conformance with the cultural expectations of humans born with ova.

I'm not seeing how that works for classification. At least, not unless all people born with ova are expected by society to behave in a certain way, in which case all people born with ova are women. That definition works for me, but I would prefer to eliminate the behavioral expectations.

 

[Emily's Cat]

However, if someone is a TERF, it is okay to say something like that. Or another example is how I have posted "Punch a TERF" memes before on Facebook (not nearly as often as I post "Punch a Nazi/fascist" memes, however).

It is perfectly okay to insult people who want to restrict your rights.

I know Boudicca has elected to not participate in this thread, but rather to take her invective to other threads where people won't directly challenge her assertions because it's off topic. But I'm going to respond anyway.

Not a single one of the people in this thread who as challenged the trans agenda and the overriding of female sex-based rights has suggested that violence against transgender people is acceptable in ANY fashion. Every one of us is fully supportive of transgender people being protected from violence on the basis of their gender.

In contrast, however, trans activists feel that it is acceptable and appropriate to advocate for violence against females.

 

[Rolfe]

In your opinion, does my definition invoke subjective personal identity?

The first one is fine, but too narrow. Some females are not born with ova. But in general, accepting you've missed out cases of physical abnormality, it's a decent first approximation.

The other two are circular and self-referential.

 

[Rolfe]

I know Boudicca has elected to not participate in this thread, but rather to take her invective to other threads where people won't directly challenge her assertions because it's off topic. But I'm going to respond anyway.

Not a single one of the people in this thread who as challenged the trans agenda and the overriding of female sex-based rights has suggested that violence against transgender people is acceptable in ANY fashion. Every one of us is fully supportive of transgender people being protected from violence on the basis of their gender.

In contrast, however, trans activists feel that it is acceptable and appropriate to advocate for violence against females.

Boudicca's idea of the "rights" he doesn't want to be restricted is in fact the appropriation of the rights of a group to which he does not belong. He is not, therefore, entitled to these rights in the first place.

Stretching the limits out of kindness was once a thing. Women are getting more and more resistant to that though, and it's demands of this nature that are fuelling that resistance.

Transwomen have all the human rights other human males have. They have the right not to be discriminated against in such things as housing and employment, and they have the right to live free from violence and abuse. In addition they have the specific right not to be discriminated against in such things as housing and employment, or to suffer violence and abuse, if the reason for this discrimination or abuse is their transgender status. This right already exists, they do not have to campaign for it.

This is all well and good and I support this, obviously. I do not support any biological male being given the legal right to be part of the sex class of "females" and to have legal right to enter and participate in any female sex-segregated spaces or categories. The more people like Boudicca demand such entitlement, the more obvious it is why this should absolutely not happen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In my opinion that is just a slight variation on "identifies as women", and I think it's flawed as well.

Another variation offered very early, I think in 2019, is "performs the female gender role." I can't see any difference in those definitions that isn't substantially the same as "acts like a woman". So, it's circular, and on top of that it doesn't distinguish between people who are "really" women, and people who just "act like" women.

I don't think it's a variation... but it is still incredibly vague, and I have other objections to it.

It's the "expected to perform" that makes it vague. Many might assume that a biological female is expected to perform femininity (which falls into my next objection), but for those who are trans and allies, they might assert that transwomen are expected to perform femininity. For some people, it might end up being driven subjectively by how well they believe someone passes as a woman.

The second objection is about both the "perform" and the "femininity" aspect of that statement. For many females, we're not "performing" anything at all. We're doing nothing more than existing as we are. Furthermore, a great many of us find the socially-defined definitions of "femininity" to be oppressive and confining. It implies that a masculine female isn't a woman, regardless of her biology. It implies that an effeminate male is not a man despite his physical reality. It regressively reinforces damaging stereotypes that many of us have been trying to shed for decades.