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

[caveman1917]

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.

If you define "woman" by a person showing feminine behaviour (due to a switch in their brain or otherwise) then there are, by definition, no unfeminine women.

 

[Olmstead]

If you define "woman" by a person showing feminine behaviour (due to a switch in their brain or otherwise) then there are, by definition, no unfeminine women.

Well, yes. Which solves the problem.

There's still the traditional concept of femininity which depends on the frequency of the occurrence of a certain type of behaviour.

 

[caveman1917]

Well, yes. Which solves the problem.

Yes, but at the cost of immediately entailing statements such as 3b1, 3b2, etc. If there can be no unfeminine women then all women must be feminine.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's unclear what "observable reality" you're referring to here. Can you elaborate?

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.

Like, say, denying that the validity of the experiences of females as a result of their biological sex are important and meaningful?

 

[Olmstead]

Yes, but at the cost of immediately entailing statements such as 3b1, 3b2, etc. If there can be no unfeminine women then all women must be feminine.

No, because those statements concern the traditional concept of femininity. A "butch lesbian" would still be a woman, she would just be a less frequent result of having a female gender, i.e. a switch set on "woman", but no less valid.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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").

If there were a switch in the brain that produces this identification, It would still be an internal sense of self, but there would be an objectively testable and verifiable item for it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That's a fair point, although perhaps overly explicit for this thread.

Someone with a switch in their brain set to "missing both legs" would be able to say "See, I really genuinely identify as transabled"... but if they have both legs firmly attached and functional... that switch wouldn't justify them saying "I actually am disabled".

 

[caveman1917]

No, because those statements concern the traditional concept of femininity. A "butch lesbian" would still be a woman, she would just be a less frequent result of having a female gender, i.e. a switch set on "woman", but no less valid.

For a "switch" in the brain to be observable it must be either a belief and thus observable to the persons themselves (which gives the circular "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" under category 1) or a behaviour and thus observable to other persons (which gives definition 3b with all it entails).

If the setting of the "switch" is defined by the display of feminine behaviour then a person not showing that behaviour isn't just a less frequent result of the "switch" being on that setting but inconsistent with that setting. If this "switch" is neither defined by a held belief nor a displayed behaviour then the definition "a woman is anyone whose unobservable brain switch is set to woman" is circular and falls under category 1.

 

[Olmstead]

If there were a switch in the brain that produces this identification, It would still be an internal sense of self, but there would be an objectively testable and verifiable item for it.

This switch would also affect experience and behaviour though:

If you put a brain of a male person with the switch set on "woman" into a female body, they would act like a woman.

If you put a brain of a male person with the switch set on "man" into a female body, they would act like a man inside a female body.

Yes, it could be a can of worms.

It's also the only reality that would make the statement "Transwomen are women" true. The statement doesn't make sense in any other context.

 

[caveman1917]

If there were a switch in the brain that produces this identification, It would still be an internal sense of self, but there would be an objectively testable and verifiable item for it.

My point is just that even then it wouldn't support the given claim. Even right now it's easy to stipulate that the belief is genuinely held, which in turn makes "the person says so" also an "objectively testable and verifiable item for it." This whole brain state thing isn't the deus ex machina that people seem to think it is for supporting the proposition that transwomen are women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

For a "switch" in the brain to be observable it must be either a belief and thus observable to the persons themselves (which gives the circular "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" under category 1) or a behaviour and thus observable to other persons (which gives definition 3b with all it entails).

If the setting of the "switch" is defined by the display of feminine behaviour then a person not showing that behaviour isn't just a less frequent result of the "switch" being on that setting but inconsistent with that setting. If this "switch" is neither defined by a held belief nor a displayed behaviour then the definition "a woman is anyone whose unobservable brain switch is set to woman" is circular and falls under category 1.

I assumed Olmstead was talking about a physical nuerological attribute, not a belief or a behavior.

For example, my bipolar relative doesn't have any observable neurological characteristics for a positive ID of her disorder, it's all behavioral.

On the other hand, my epilepsy can be directly observes as a physical response, and the reaction of my brain to specific stimula can be measured with an EEG.

And my late great aunt's brain tumor was quite literally observable.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This switch would also affect experience and behaviour though:

If you put a brain of a male person with the switch set on "woman" into a female body, they would act like a woman.

If you put a brain of a male person with the switch set on "man" into a female body, they would act like a man inside a female body.

Yes, it could be a can of worms.

It's also the only reality that would make the statement "Transwomen are women" true. The statement doesn't make sense in any other context.

This does, however, presuppose that a set of behaviors exist that is clearly "woman" or "man" behaviors.

It would be nice to have an identifiable part of the brain that could be measured to give a positive diagnosis of gender dysphoria - it would weed out false positives.

But given that the behaviors expected of women vary across time and culture, I'm skeptical as to whether that behavior set of "woman" (or man) exists as you describe it.

 

[caveman1917]

I assumed Olmstead was talking about a physical nuerological attribute, not a belief or a behavior.

That's the same thing.

For example, my bipolar relative doesn't have any observable neurological characteristics for a positive ID of her disorder, it's all behavioral.

Yes she does. Just because we can't observe them now doesn't mean they are not there. In principle, using the same technology for mind uploading, one could do a precise enough brain scan to find and identify the neural correlates. It's all encoded in the brain state, there is no immaterial magic or anything causing the behaviours.

 

[Collin237]

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.

That's only because by now it's become somewhat of a hashtag. It's the same with saying "all lives matter". Of course all lives matter, but the phrase has acquired a bad significance.

It seems that the phrase "trans women are men" mainly comes from feminists. As far as Skepticism goes, that's far from the worst thing feminists say. The most serious issue is the statements feminists make about "patriarchy". They seem to actually believe it's some kind of demon, which makes it very difficult to support women's rights in a secular society. They believe trans women are agents of this demon:

https://www.scotsman.com/news/opini...owling-trans-rights-row-susan-dalgety-2910085

Scrape away some trans women’s make-up and underneath you will find the same misogyny that has stunted the lives of women and girls since the start of human evolution. They and their allies have decided what is good feminism and what is bad.

It's not worthwhile to argue whether trans women are deluded in some pedantic sense, when their feminist enemies are spouting such claims that are actually delusional. Which side are you on?

 

[Olmstead]

This does, however, presuppose that a set of behaviors exist that is clearly "woman" or "man" behaviors.

It would be nice to have an identifiable part of the brain that could be measured to give a positive diagnosis of gender dysphoria - it would weed out false positives.

But given that the behaviors expected of women vary across time and culture, I'm skeptical as to whether that behavior set of "woman" (or man) exists as you describe it.

Sure, it's all hypothetical. I don't really believe it either. I'm just constructing the conditions that would personally make me accept transwomen as women from a scientific point of view.

 

[Collin237]

Provide your definition 3c in the proper form: "Defining 'woman' as ..." where you fill in the dots.

Defining 'woman' as either having a female anatomy, or having an illusion of female anatomy reasonably consistent with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

If Boudicca were to see a reputable gender specialist to determine whether she is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, then that would make her claim to be a woman a factual statement demonstrated either true or false. Otherwise, it's her own opinion, and since she appears to be distressed by requests for her to define it, it's not anyone's business to pry.

 

[theprestige]

That's only because by now it's become somewhat of a hashtag. It's the same with saying "all lives matter". Of course all lives matter, but the phrase has acquired a bad significance.

It seems that the phrase "trans women are men" mainly comes from feminists.

Can we at least agree that transwomen are biologically male?

 

[caveman1917]

Defining 'woman' as either having a female anatomy, or having an illusion of female anatomy reasonably consistent with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

That's inconsistent with transwomen not being men. By symmetry, defining "man" as either 1) being of the male sex or 2) believing to be of the male sex. Boudicca would then be both a man (because of 1) and a woman (because of 2). Indeed, all transgender people would be both man and woman. In as much as that would, at first glance, make transwomen women it would also make them men.

 

[theprestige]

Defining 'woman' as either having a female anatomy, or having an illusion of female anatomy reasonably consistent with the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

If Boudicca were to see a reputable gender specialist to determine whether she is diagnosed with gender dysphoria, then that would make her claim to be a woman a factual statement demonstrated either true or false. Otherwise, it's her own opinion, and since she appears to be distressed by requests for her to define it, it's not anyone's business to pry.

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria does not make someone factually a woman. Any more than a diagnosis of delusions of grandeur make someone factually grand.

 

[caveman1917]

A diagnosis of gender dysphoria does not make someone factually a woman.

It does if you define "woman" as either "of the female sex" or "of the male sex and diagnosed with gender dysphoria." Whether that's a good definition is highly dubitable,[*] but, again at first glance, it is an existing one that would make the proposition "transwomen are women" evaluate to true.

* For example I'd wonder whether he would also define "legless" as: either 1) "not having legs" or 2) "having the belief of not having legs." Similarly for the Napoleon example.