caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Well ultimately, as far as the proposition "transwomen are women" is concerned, the definition of "transwoman" is just as relevant as that of "woman" so this should also be made precise.
Cont: [ED] Discussion: Trans Women are not Women (Part 5)
- Thread starter Archie Gemmill Goal
- Start date
- Status
Well ultimately, as far as the proposition "transwomen are women" is concerned, the definition of "transwoman" is just as relevant as that of "woman" so this should also be made precise.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Good luck with that.
caveman1917
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 8,143
Yeah I'm not holding my breath. Even if Collin is, to my knowledge, the first one in this thread to provide a proper definition of "woman" such that "transwomen are women" evaluates to true, it is at the cost of defining "transwomen" as "males believing to have female anatomy."
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
I love this "valid lived condition" stuff, as if somehow it addresses the issue.
I will offer another valid lived condition. "Teenaged boy". That's a valid lived condition.
There's something special about that particular valid lived condition. If you happen to be experiencing that valid lived condition, you don't get to see my daughter naked without her consent.
That's all understood, right? We all get that? Perfect. Now all we have to do is provide some criteria we can use to describe who fits into that valid lived condition. That should be easy enough. What's the definition of b......Oh. This could be trickier than I thought.
Well, no, I suppose it isn't really. I have a definition handy. Unless someone offers up a better one, let's use mine.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Wonderful. Let's use their definition of "woman" or "man". At least we should give it a chance.
What is it?
Yes. I think that what she actually meant by that is that she considers her gender to be biologically determined as opposed to a "desire" or the result of some environmental factor.
The issue with that statement is not the position stated above, assuming I interpret her correctly, but that the statement violated what had been previously (mostly) agreed to terminology for the discussion: male/female referred to sex, man/woman referred to gender. She wished to claim both terms to refer to gender. Or perhaps its more accurate to say she did not want her sex referred to.
Further, and I may be mis-remembering this, I think she also considered her sex to be female. But I think that for her, gender overruled sex to the point that sex did not matter to her. Anyway, for whatever reason, she found being referred to as male to be offensive even when the reference was to her physical sex, not her gender.
This conversation is largely about sex and gender as separate (but linked) concepts. That separation of terminology is necessary. Unfortunately, when discussing the condition and experiences of a person participating in the conversation, it may be triggering because those same types of statements in other contexts have been weaponized.
But you would let a girl see your daughter naked without her consent? Why the double standard?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, that's a good idea - let's have that whole conversation all over again!
Seriously, read the thread.
Yes, that's a good idea - let's have that whole conversation all over again!
Seriously, read the thread.
Could you please provide a post number?
Matthew Best
Penultimate Amazing
Nope
This isn't really a response to you, I just used your post as a jumping off point.
I've been thinking about this back and forth on definitions, and I think it's kind of a wild goose chase.
I think Olmstead earlier posted the idea of a biological switch for gender that was separate from sex. That makes sense to me, as a biologist, though I think we are probably talking about a set of dip switches rather than a single switch.
Recalling my ethology class in college (over 30 years ago now) there are some behavioral traits or instincts that seem to be heritable rather than learned. And some of those are sexually linked. Of course, in animals, we can only observe behaviors, we can't really get to things like personality. But I also recall from my psychology classes that there seemed to be a heritable component to at least some aspects of personality as well.
So suppose there are a set of instincts involving living with a female body. It is conceivable that in rare cases those instincts or personality traits may be activated in a person with a male body. Kind of like the wrong operating system for the hardware.
But how would you describe that? I can describe my personality and self-image, but I can't really say what of that makes me a "man." "Male" is easy. That's sex. It's physically observable. But I can't really define what makes me a "man." If there is a set of dip switches, I know that mine add up to "man" and presumably, the Prestiges add up to man, but I can't really say that the switches are all thrown the same way. So we could both be men in completely different ways.
Personality and identity are fuzzy amorphous concepts. Like much in psychology, they aren't directly measurable. Therefore they are nearly impossible to clearly define.
So other than to argue the point "trans-women are/are not women," is it really necessary to get solid definitions where none are possible?
It seems like most everyone in this thread is in agreement that:
- Gender dysphoria is a legitimate condition
- Trans-people should not be discriminated against.
- In social circumstances, trans-women should be treated as women (pronouns/etc).
Other than the big statement in the thread title, the contention is about what things should be segregated by sex and what things should be segregated by gender. (Oh, and how can those rules be enforced or compliance verified.) You don't need good definitions for that.
I said this in an earlier post.
We continue to teach our children (of both sexes) that they should not undress in the presence of the opposite sex. I haven't heard anyone propose we stop teaching this social convention.
Given this teaching, they are naturally going to be uncomfortable undressing in the presence of someone that has the morphology of the opposite sex.
We teach our daughters to be uncomfortable being naked around males who are not intimate partners and then we are surprised when the presence of someone with a penis in their locker room makes them uncomfortable? And that because of what we taught them, they should be punished by having to use a separate facility to change? Or they should be denigrated for transphobia? (Even though it really has nothing to do with trans. It's more androphobia, really.)
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Yes.
As Matthew Best noted, this is pretty well worn ground. However, every single aspect of this debate is pretty well worn ground in this thread. There really hasn't been much new. I'll see if I can easily locate some previous part of the discussion that explains this.
Not that most people would need it explained, but so it goes.
Meadmaker
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2004
- Messages
- 29,033
Try this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13232275#post13232275
It hits the high points.
Of course this is just one area where it was discussed. There are many, many, more.
In the thread tools function at the top of the thread area, one of the options is to search this thread. Put in "locker" as a search term. Or "naked". Or "disrobed", "unclothed". You might have to wade through some posts that aren't related, but that's where you'll find things. I had the advantage of remembering some lesser used search terms from the particular posts I was looking at, so I didn't have to wade through as many irrelevant posts.
Nobody has the exact same morphology. We have locker rooms full of naked children, each of whom can compare their genitals with that of others. It's grotesque.
If you don't require the fear to be rational, then women are also in danger from other women. All a woman has to do is walk past another woman at a close enough distance so one of their chests is in contact; it doesn't even have to be deliberate.
Transsexuality is a condition that is being researched by reputable scientists. It is not an ideology. I am condemning the ideology attempting to coopt transsexuality. I am also condemning the conflation of the two.
No. It is not at all odd that people object to people being treated differently than people. Separate but Equal is immoral. And in civilized countries, it's also illegal.
- Status