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

[Matthew Best]

OK...

 

[Meadmaker]

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

Curiously absent from your link is any definition of "man" or "woman". Also absent is any statement that would depend on such a definition, such as a statement that "transwomen are women".

 

[Olmstead]

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 This is outdated.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.

Sports are fun. Sports are lucrative. Women's sports are fun. Women's sports are lucrative. Transwomen in women's sports equals no more women's sports. No more women's sports equals less fun and less money.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are referring to.


Another new forum member tip: If you look at most of our posts, they begin with a quote. That serves a couple of purposes. It might get the actual words in plain view, so we can see what you meant, and if not, it contains a link so you can follow the context. If I knew which post you were referring to, I would be better able to answer.

As it is, what I see a great deal of is that all statements saying "transwomen are men" are called bigoted, whether or not they are accompanied by any other statement at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Indeed.

I think that a lot of trans rights activists think that there is such a switch. If it existed and could be identified, then it could make sense out of the claims that transwomen are not just women, but actual, biological, women.

But then we would still need a word for what we used to call "women", i.e. the people of female sex. It would still be a useful category, and, dare I say it, it might still make sense to segregate locker rooms based on those physical characteristics, even if we could identify the "switch", and it would almost certainly still make sense to segregate athletic competitions based on phyical characteristics. However, that's too many hypotheticals for my taste.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

The above statements are just plain wrong.

You don't care about sports. That's fine, you don't have to. You also clearly don't understand sports. That lack of understanding leads you to make inaccurate statements.

I can attempt to educate you on the error of your ways with regard to sports, if it's something that interests you. Other people will probably attempt to do so, whether or not it's something that interests you.

 

[caveman1917]

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 don't care whether it is morally just or socially wise. This is a skeptics forum, I care whether it is sound reasoning. And there just isn't a proper definition of "woman" to make the claim "transwomen are women" true, without that definition also entailing a bunch of other claims. It is what it is. If you want to make a moral or social argument, then the claim should be "transwomen should be treated as women" or something like that.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

That's just the circular "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." (where the statement "I identify as a woman" is the observation that the "switch" is set to "woman").

 

[theprestige]

Contemporary sports should be things like math or chess.

Math and chess are also dominated by biological males.

This has been discussed. You really should read the thread.

 

[caveman1917]

Indeed.

I think that a lot of trans rights activists think that there is such a switch.

Well of course such a switch exists. Every belief a person holds, including "I identify as a woman" or anything else, is encoded somehow in the brain. In principle, it could be identified with a sufficiently precise brain scan - ie a "switch" in the brain.

If it existed and could be identified, then it could make sense out of the claims that transwomen are not just women, but actual, biological, women.

That's a no. There would be, for example, just as well a "switch" in the brain for the belief that one is Napoleon, yet we wouldn't take that as evidence that the person is, in fact, Napoleon. It's evidence for the belief, not for the fact itself.

 

[theprestige]

That's just the circular "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." (where the statement "I identify as a woman" is the observation that the "switch" is set to "woman").

I think Olmstead is talking about a biological fact. A brain state that could determined by a blood test or an MRI.

It would be nice if a transwoman could point to such a scientific reality and say, "see? I really am a woman!"

But as far as we know, no such reality exists.

 

[caveman1917]

I think Olmstead is talking about a biological fact. A brain state that could determined by a blood test or an MRI.

It would be nice if a transwoman could point to such a scientific reality and say, "see? I really am a woman!"

But as far as we know, no such reality exists.

You're missing the point. Even if, as it in principle should be, it were possible to determine the brain state then it would not support "see? I really am a woman!" but "see? I really genuinely identify as a woman!" Which I think nobody here disputed. Again, it's evidence for the belief, not for the fact itself. And as way of defining "woman" the definition "a woman is anyone whose brain switch is set to woman" is no less circular than "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." Indeed, assuming the belief is genuinely held, the person stating "I identify as a woman" could be considered as just another method for observing that brain state.

 

[Olmstead]

You're missing the point. Even if, as it in principle should be, it were possible to determine the brain state then it would not support "see? I really am a woman!" but "see? I really genuinely identify as a woman!" Which I think nobody here disputed. Again, it's evidence for the belief, not for the fact itself. And as way of defining "woman" the definition "a woman is anyone whose brain switch is set to woman" is no less circular than "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman." Indeed, assuming the belief is genuinely held, the person stating "I identify as a woman" could be considered as just another method for observing that brain state.

It's not about belief. It presupposes a bilogical essence of womanhood or manhood that is somehow separate from sex.

This is probably the only way that would help me wrap my head around the idea that transwomen are women. It's worth considering at least.

 

[Elaedith]

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/

I linked to a video interview with Dr Soh in an earlier thread episode. She gives a very good overview of the negative effects of ideological interference in science (the reason she is no longer in academia).

 

[caveman1917]

It's not about belief. It presupposes a bilogical essence of womanhood or manhood that is somehow separate from sex.

This is probably the only way that would help me wrap my head around the idea that transwomen are women. It's worth considering at least.

If it's not about belief but about womanhood or manhood then that would fall under definition 3b - defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

 

[Olmstead]

If it's not about belief but about womanhood or manhood then that would fall under definition 3b - defining "woman" as a feminine (gender) person.

In a general sense, gender is just a concept that encompasses the behaviour of every potential male or female person. The current understanding is that this behaviour is influenced by sex. If there were a biological reality separate from sex that influences this behaviour, there could be a non-circular definition for "woman" that defines both cisgender women and transwomen.

 

[caveman1917]

In a general sense, gender is just a concept that encompasses the behaviour of every potential male or female person. The current understanding is that this behaviour is influenced by sex. If there were a biological reality separate from sex that influences this behaviour, there could be a non-circular definition for "woman" that defines both cisgender women and transwomen.

Sure, but as I mentioned definition 3b also immediately entails a bunch of other statements like 3b1, 3b2, etc (I notice I messed up the numbering in my earlier post and wrote 3a1 instead of 3b1 etc).

 

[Collin237]

Sorry. Here's the quote.

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.

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.

 

[caveman1917]

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.

You're being incoherent. Nobody concluded anything about anyone's opinions not existing, whatever that even means.

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.

Not getting any better on the coherence front there.

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.

You did not provide any definition 3c but merely alluded to its supposed existence. Provide your definition 3c in the proper form: "Defining 'woman' as ..." where you fill in the dots.

 

[Olmstead]

Sure, but as I mentioned definition 3b also immediately entails a bunch of other statements like 3b1, 3b2, etc (I notice I messed up the numbering in my earlier post and wrote 3a1 instead of 3b1 etc).

Not exactly. In my hypothetical scenario, the statements wouldn't read "Women must be ... due to the 'woman switch' in their brains" but "Women have the potential to be ... due to the 'woman switch' in their brains".

Unfeminine women problem solved.