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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
I wondered if that's what he meant. Maybe even as a side effect of medication?

Thinking about the one time I had a kidney stone, I could not tell you one way or another whether I had erectile dysfunction, because it was not even a thing that was on my mind.
Click to expand...

I've never had one... but from the descriptions given by those who have, I can't imagine that sex is even remotely in the ballpark of thoughts.
 
Emily's Cat said:
This is clearly a personal question, and if you prefer not to answer, that's fine.

What does the highlighted mean? In what way did a kidney stone cause a temporary loss of gender? What does gender mean in this context?
Click to expand...

"Now I do not know whether I was then a kidney stone dreaming I was a woman, or whether I am now a woman, dreaming I am a kidney stone.”

- Zhuangzi, probably
 
theprestige said:
Literally the very first post in in the thread, the one that kicked the whole thing off, says one of the places it comes from.
Click to expand...

I did have a laugh about that, but the OP was three years ago.

I get thoroughly pissed off at people who go down the "I don't care about sports" track. Like it or hate it, sport is a multi-billion-dollar industry that employs hundreds of thousands of people, and dismissing it through some personal preference is just BS.
 
The thread is on moderated status while the mod team deal with the very large number of reports, including reports of a threat against the foum.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Meadmaker said:
I would be satisfied to get a definition of "woman" that works in any situation, but that is not a circular definition. I've never gotten anything other than "adult human female", or some slight variation of "anyone who identifies as a woman".
Click to expand...

A couple thread iterations ago we looked at the definition issue in general. In short:

By Munchhausen's trilemma we have 3 options for defining "woman":

1. Circular. This is to be rejected as meaningless.
2. Infinite regress. To be rejected as well.
3. Axiomatic. Defining "woman" in terms of more fundamental terms, let's go with this. We have 2 more fundamental notions to use, sex (biological) or gender (sociological). Giving us:

3a: Defining "woman" as a female (sex) person. this is the mainstream and dictionary definition.

3b: Defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

From 3a it follows that transwomen are not women. From 3b it follows that anyone not feminine is not a woman. For example the following follows:

3a1: Butch lesbians aren't women.
3a2: Women must have long hair.
3a3: Women must be submissive.
etc

So it's not just that a definition for "woman" hasn't been provided but that one can not exist that doesn't immediately lead to the regressive statements under 3a and similar.

From this we can also conclude that people like Boudicca who claim to have super-secret special definitions of "woman" that make their claims work are mistaken, as such definitions can not exist. Not just are unknown to exist, but can not exist.
 
theprestige said:
As far as I know, this particular delusion - that the body should be female when it is male - is the only delusion, dysmorphic or otherwise, where the recommended treatment is to pretend the delusion is fact and play along with it.
Click to expand...

Saying "this body should be female" is not a delusion though, it's not a statement of fact but a statement of preference. Saying "this body is female" would be a delusion.
 
caveman1917 said:
A couple thread iterations ago we looked at the definition issue in general. In short:

By Munchhausen's trilemma we have 3 options for defining "woman":

1. Circular. This is to be rejected as meaningless.
2. Infinite regress. To be rejected as well.
3. Axiomatic. Defining "woman" in terms of more fundamental terms, let's go with this. We have 2 more fundamental notions to use, sex (biological) or gender (sociological). Giving us:

3a: Defining "woman" as a female (sex) person. this is the mainstream and dictionary definition.

3b: Defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

From 3a it follows that transwomen are not women. From 3b it follows that anyone not feminine is not a woman. For example the following follows:

3a1: Butch lesbians aren't women.
3a2: Women must have long hair.
3a3: Women must be submissive.
etc

So it's not just that a definition for "woman" hasn't been provided but that one can not exist that doesn't immediately lead to the regressive statements under 3a and similar.

From this we can also conclude that people like Boudicca who claim to have super-secret special definitions of "woman" that make their claims work are mistaken, as such definitions can not exist. Not just are unknown to exist, but can not exist.
Click to expand...



It appears that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of a) what transgender identity and gender dysphoria actually are, and b) the generally-accepted terms and definitions as they apply within the context of serious transgender discussions/studies/medicine/legislation.

The following link might assist in your understanding (it's from an organisation which has the weight of relevant expertise and experience to actually know what it's talking about); hope it helps:

https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria
 
caveman1917 said:
A couple thread iterations ago we looked at the definition issue in general. In short:

By Munchhausen's trilemma we have 3 options for defining "woman":

1. Circular. This is to be rejected as meaningless.
2. Infinite regress. To be rejected as well.
3. Axiomatic. Defining "woman" in terms of more fundamental terms, let's go with this. We have 2 more fundamental notions to use, sex (biological) or gender (sociological). Giving us:

3a: Defining "woman" as a female (sex) person. this is the mainstream and dictionary definition.

3b: Defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

From 3a it follows that transwomen are not women. From 3b it follows that anyone not feminine is not a woman. For example the following follows:

3a1: Butch lesbians aren't women.
3a2: Women must have long hair.
3a3: Women must be submissive.
etc

So it's not just that a definition for "woman" hasn't been provided but that one can not exist that doesn't immediately lead to the regressive statements under 3a and similar.

From this we can also conclude that people like Boudicca who claim to have super-secret special definitions of "woman" that make their claims work are mistaken, as such definitions can not exist. Not just are unknown to exist, but can not exist.
Click to expand...

It would be easier to sort people into clear groups using unambiguous, binary criteria, but that's not proof that doing so is a morally just or socially wise course of action.

I agree that the existence of trans people makes the issue of gender much more complicated. The existence of challenging data doesn't mean we dismiss that data as invalid. It would be easier to just dismiss trans people as mentally ill perverts, but that just betrays an aversion to nuance and an unwillingness to adapt older models of social structure to deal with observed reality.

Yes, there's a difference between a butch lesbian and a trans man, and it's not easy to cut clean, straight lines on what constitutes the female gender.

It's important to note that a desire to deny the validity of individual experience that contradicts established social structures is often the root of tremendous oppression.

The entire history of LGBT activism is to point out that people that exist outside the heteronormative standard exist, and their identity is valid and worthy of respect.
 
There is at least one possible definition. If there were a "switch" in the brain that is set to either man or woman, a woman would be any person whose switch is set to "woman".
Gender dysphoria would be the inevitable result of the switch not reflecting the sex of the person.

Of course, that's all just hypothetical, and I doubt the human brain is that straightforward, but there is the possibility.
 
caveman1917 said:
A couple thread iterations ago we looked at the definition issue in general. In short:

By Munchhausen's trilemma we have 3 options for defining "woman":

1. Circular. This is to be rejected as meaningless.
2. Infinite regress. To be rejected as well.
3. Axiomatic. Defining "woman" in terms of more fundamental terms, let's go with this. We have 2 more fundamental notions to use, sex (biological) or gender (sociological). Giving us:

3a: Defining "woman" as a female (sex) person. this is the mainstream and dictionary definition.

3b: Defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

From 3a it follows that transwomen are not women. From 3b it follows that anyone not feminine is not a woman. For example the following follows:

3a1: Butch lesbians aren't women.
3a2: Women must have long hair.
3a3: Women must be submissive.
etc

So it's not just that a definition for "woman" hasn't been provided but that one can not exist that doesn't immediately lead to the regressive statements under 3a and similar.

From this we can also conclude that people like Boudicca who claim to have super-secret special definitions of "woman" that make their claims work are mistaken, as such definitions can not exist. Not just are unknown to exist, but can not exist.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's a good elaboration of what I was saying.

I was going with the idea that the specific societal expectations weren't spelled out, leaving "a woman is someone who acts like a woman", which is circular. However, it would be possible to be specific about the expectations, leaving us with 3a1, 3a2, 3a3, etc, which no one agrees with.
 
I will take the thread off moderated status, but participants should not treat this as a licence to return to being personal or insulting or uncivil. Discuss arguments rather than each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Meadmaker:

Concluding that someone's unstated opinion doesn't exist is impossible. It's a sign you've reached reductio ad absurdum, and one of your premises is wrong.

What rational, non-paranoid explanation can there be for someone to keep an opinion absolutely secret even after they admit that they have it? I can think of only one: because it's sexual.

Considering that gender dysphoria, besides whatever ideology it might pertain to, is also a subject of actual research, it's fair to say that gender is not (or at least not entirely) sociological. So your premise that there's only 3a and 3b is wrong. There's also a medical category of gender, and that would be 3c.

There's also the question of why trans women say they're women. I don't think it's as simple as making a statement. I think it's more about verbal self-defense.

There are a lot of posts throughout the internet claiming that trans women are men, and they are almost always accompanied by something bigoted. This is a serious phenomenon that should be recognized and fought against. However, everyone I've seen purporting to analyze it mistakes correlation for causation, claiming instead that the posts containing this assertion are being called bigoted because of the assertion itself. This is just one case of a more general trend in 21st century discourse; everyone seems to have lost the ability to recognize hateful remarks at a glance.
 
Last edited:
Came across this podcast in my feed, happens to be at the intersection of skepticism and gender studies:

https://www.skeptic.com/michael-she...king-myths-about-sex-and-identity-in-society/
Is our gender something we’re born with, or are we conditioned by society? In The End of Gender, neuroscientist and sexologist Dr. Debra Soh uses a research-based approach to address this hot-button topic, unmasking popular misconceptions about the nature vs. nurture debate and exploring what it means to be a woman or a man in today’s society.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
In that case, I'd like to take you up on your offer of links:



Please. I'd like a link to the academic or medical material that you think gives the most eloquent and exhaustive explanation for why "option 3" - transwomen just using the men's facilities - should be a non-starter. Thanks!
Click to expand...

Friendly reminder for LondonJohn, as a lot has happened in the last few days, and I don't want this to get missed.
 
I've heard that this thread was originally about sports. Having had 24 hours to myself, I've realized two things that hadn't occurred to me before.

1. Sports in general: It's claimed (although I can't vouch either way) that most sports championships are awarded to men. This is considered an unfair occupation which would be made worse if trans women are included. But it's not an occupation of a field of latent opportunity. It's the natural result of a field that's intrinsically built around male-dominant talents. Of all people, feminists should be the first to realize that.

The main problem is that the current global culture equates championship with physical strength. This is outdated. Physical strength is not very relevant to anything anymore. The strength that matters nowadays is cognition. Contemporary sports should be things like math or chess.

2. Specifically school sports: The purpose of school is to learn. And it's generally accepted that a fair grading system is one that accurately reflects students' learning achievement. Sometimes, learning how to do something can't be done with the actual event. For example, a lesson on how to defuse a bomb cannot involve an actual bomb. When students play sports, the only thing they learn that can be justified as a subject in a public school is how to participate in a competition. But should they actually be competing for anything? I think not, because awarding a student or group of students with having won a sport does not depend on how well they learn the social graces of competition, and is therefore an unfair offset to the grading system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom