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

[theprestige]

'The notion of "biological sex" was developed for the exclusive purpose of being weaponized against people'.

I could have sworn the notion of biological sex also applies to other species. I'm not sure how one weaponises this against individuals of other species when one cannot ask them to declare their gender identity. I suppose having been developed as a weapon against people, it just turned out by happy coincidence to be useful elsewhere.

I think he's orwelling at us: There was a perfectly cromulent notion of "sex", but it marginalizes transsexuals, who have sought and achieved alternate definitions. Definitions that give them greater leeway to have a valid lived experience.

Then the haters, who resent that leeway, come back with a spurious and bad-faith emphasis on biology - bUt tHaT'S NoT YoUr bIoLoGiCaL SeX! I.e., it's the haters who are orwelling at us, with this recent pivot to "biological sex" as a way to castigate transsexuals. Transsexuals who just want to be accepted for who they are, without having to be pinned down to concrete, specific definitions that might rule out some of their current privileges and entitlements.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You don't agree?

I would say there are under 5 people who have posted that don't seem onboard, and that's throughout the whole megathread (the parts I've seen anyway).


ETA - Obviously the post right above yours is a pretty bad and ill-timed example.

I don't agree in the slightest. If people genuinely were caring and compassionate towards transpeople then the thread title wouldn't have been repeated 5 times for a start, we wouldn't see people posting 'funny' pictures about denying biology, I wouldn't have had to block half a dozen posters from this thread and we wouldn't have the cabal of old white men dripping every post with condescension.

it's why I've given up on this thread. Only checking back every few weeks to see if the usual suspects are still harping on about the same crap.

Of course all the transphobes like to paint themselves as 'reasonable' and 'caring for transpeople' and I bet some of their best friends are black too.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you want to use a different definition than other people, and moreover insist other people adopt your definition as well, you actually do have an obligation to provide it.

Huh? Firstly, neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to do anything on an internet forum. Were you participating here under a different impression?

Secondly, I have provided "my"* definition within these threads more than once already. I took exception at being virtually ordered to do so in something approaching an imperialist fashion (in an online forum!), so I declined to jump through that hoop. But soon thereafter I provided a link to document which accurately contains all of "my"* definitions as they pertain to the issue under discussion in these threads.


* And, as I've also pointed out many times already in these threads, "my" definitions are precisely those definitions which are now generally accepted and understood within the medical community, the sociology community, and legislative bodies. They're hardly my own special, unique or different definitions. Which is one further reason why I've baulked at them being demanded of me (as if I'm harbouring some special secret which I'm loathe to divulge or something.....).



ETA: Where have I "insisted that other people adopt my* definition as well"? I have suggested that it would be to the benefit of the debate if people were to use the generally-accepted definitions of male, female, man and woman - as they apply within the context of a discussion around gender dysphoria and transgender identity. Rather than to pick up on individual posters' own definitions (especially where those definitions contradict the generally-accepted ones - witness the piling-on on Boudicca90 when she referred to herself here as "female" - a term which is in contradiction with the generally-accepted definition, and whose adoption within these threads would only therefore (IMO) serve to muddy the waters of any discussion/debate).


* And again, "my" definition is not some sort of secret-sauce-jealously-guarded-by-me definition. It's the standard definition used by all of the official bodies, which is also now in common usage across all discussions related to the topic. Demanding that I provide "my" definition would be a bit like someone in a boxing thread being demanded to provide "their" definition of "middleweight", "bantamweight", "heavyweight", etc.....

 

[Louden Wilde]

Make of that what you will, but that's completely opposite to the way he presents the issue in the recording.

Also, this isn't a new idea. Andrea Dworkin said practically the same thing.

http://bostonreview.net/gender-sexuality/john-stoltenberg-andrea-dworkin-was-trans-ally

I stand by what I made of it earlier in these threads:

This tweet suggests to me that he doesn't understand sex in the larger sense, is in denial, or is being disingenuous for rhetorical purposes.

My guess is the first.

 

[Butter!]

I don't agree in the slightest. If people genuinely were caring and compassionate towards transpeople then the thread title wouldn't have been repeated 5 times for a start, we wouldn't see people posting 'funny' pictures about denying biology, I wouldn't have had to block half a dozen posters from this thread and we wouldn't have the cabal of old white men dripping every post with condescension.

it's why I've given up on this thread. Only checking back every few weeks to see if the usual suspects are still harping on about the same crap.

Of course all the transphobes like to paint themselves as 'reasonable' and 'caring for transpeople' and I bet some of their best friends are black too.

Just because there have been transphobes making bad posts doesn't mean that the majority of people in the thread don't care about the issues. And I've already said a bunch of times that the title needs to go.

I made a big long post responding to MANY things you asked me a week or so ago, in great detail, and you never responded. Which is fine. People get busy, and these are rather crazy times in general. But now, you seem to be implying that I'm a transphobe who doesn't actually care about my friend (who is the only reason I ever re-entered this godforsaken thread).

 

[Meadmaker]

I really don't think you can even have looked at that link. Because it provides a very clear definition of A, as it applies to the subject in question.

Huh? Firstly, neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to do anything on an internet forum. Were you participating here under a different impression?

Secondly, I have provided "my"* definition within these threads more than once already. I took exception at being virtually ordered to do so in something approaching an imperialist fashion (in an online forum!), so I declined to jump through that hoop. But soon thereafter I provided a link to document which accurately contains all of "my"* definitions as they pertain to the issue under discussion in these threads.


* And, as I've also pointed out many times already in these threads, "my" definitions are precisely those definitions which are now generally accepted and understood within the medical community, the sociology community, and legislative bodies. They're hardly my own special, unique or different definitions. Which is one further reason why I've baulked at them being demanded of me (as if I'm harbouring some special secret which I'm loathe to divulge or something.....).



ETA: Where have I "insisted that other people adopt my* definition as well"? I have suggested that it would be to the benefit of the debate if people were to use the generally-accepted definitions of male, female, man and woman - as they apply within the context of a discussion around gender dysphoria and transgender identity. Rather than to pick up on individual posters' own definitions (especially where those definitions contradict the generally-accepted ones - witness the piling-on on Boudicca90 when she referred to herself here as "female" - a term which is in contradiction with the generally-accepted definition, and whose adoption within these threads would only therefore (IMO) serve to muddy the waters of any discussion/debate).


* And again, "my" definition is not some sort of secret-sauce-jealously-guarded-by-me definition. It's the standard definition used by all of the official bodies, which is also now in common usage across all discussions related to the topic. Demanding that I provide "my" definition would be a bit like someone in a boxing thread being demanded to provide "their" definition of "middleweight", "bantamweight", "heavyweight", etc.....

Surely you aren't referring to this link, which you posted earlier:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

It doesn't actually contain any definition of "man" or "woman".

It contains definitions of "sex" and "gender", and notes that people might see themselves as man, woman, or somewhere on a spectrum between them, but it doesn't define the terms.

ETA: I think, reading the link, one could infer that they probably mean to use the definition, "A man is a person who expresses the male gender role". Similarly for woman. The problem with that definition, first put forward in these threads by Earthborn, is that either it is circular, and therefore meaningless, or it is offensive, because it asserts that men with feminine attributes aren't really men, and likewise for women. The only alternative reading of the article in the link is that it is not based on how you behave, but as how you identify, so we end up back to a woman is a person who identifies as a woman.

So, in summary, there is no actual statement of a definition of "man" or "woman" in the link. To the extent we could infer an intended definition, the definitions suffer from the same flaws as every other non-biological definition, i.e. circularity or inaccuracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Huh? Firstly, neither I nor anyone else has an obligation to do anything on an internet forum.

There are different forms of obligation. For example, you have an obligation to act seriously if you want to be taken seriously. Nobody here can force you to, but there are still consequences (minor though they may be) in failing to do so.

Secondly, I have provided "my"* definition within these threads more than once already.

Your definition of what? "Valid lived condition"? No, I don't think you did, though you were specifically challenged on it. Your definition of "woman"? I don't recall seeing it, though I'll take your word for it that you provided one. I could easily have missed it, and I'm not actually asking for it now.

But since you made a general pronouncement about providing definitions that wasn't specific to your situation, it's relevant that Boudicca consistently refused to provide a definition for "woman".

I took exception at being virtually ordered to do so in something approaching an imperialist fashion (in an online forum!), so I declined to jump through that hoop.

You have the right to refuse. Refusal may have consequences. Those consequences will not be severe in this case, since the most anyone here can do is dismiss your arguments or ignore you, but that's still a consequence. Make of that what you will.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes. But she didn't claim to have female anatomy.

How to make sense out of that is beyond me, but that's up to her.

Oh here we go again. Bravo!

 

[LondonJohn]

Does "valid lived condition" actually mean anything? It seems awfully woolly, and more or less equivalent to "person really believes it".

Yes, it does mean something.

I'll demonstrate it by applying it to the matter of homosexuality - since this is a matter which currently appears to be properly understood by a far, far higher proportion of the general public than transgender identity:

1. Valid lived condition: gay males are sexually attracted exclusively to males.

2. "person really believes it": gay males really believe that they are sexually attracted exclusively to males.


I'd hope that this example might assist you in understanding the difference between the two (and why, for that matter, homosexuals and transgender people alike would be offended by the second one...)

 

[Louden Wilde]

Surely you aren't referring to this link, which you posted earlier:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

It doesn't actually contain any definition of "man" or "woman".

It contains definitions of "sex" and "gender", and notes that people might see themselves as man, woman, or somewhere on a spectrum between them, but it doesn't define the terms.

It also says sex is "something that is assigned at birth", as if our relevant gene expression profiles and subsequent reproductive development would have differed if the physician had written something different in the box. Using that phrase seems to be a common tactic to conflate the issues of people with DSDs with trans-issues.

 

[Elaedith]

It also says sex is "something that is assigned at birth", as if our relevant gene expression profiles and subsequent reproductive development would have differed if the physician had written something different in the box. Using that phrase seems to be a common tactic to conflate the issues of people with DSDs with trans-issues.

'Sex assigned at birth' = ideological capture

 

[LondonJohn]

There are different forms of obligation. For example, you have an obligation to act seriously if you want to be taken seriously. Nobody here can force you to, but there are still consequences (minor though they may be) in failing to do so.



Your definition of what? "Valid lived condition"? No, I don't think you did, though you were specifically challenged on it. Your definition of "woman"? I don't recall seeing it, though I'll take your word for it that you provided one. I could easily have missed it, and I'm not actually asking for it now.

But since you made a general pronouncement about providing definitions that wasn't specific to your situation, it's relevant that Boudicca consistently refused to provide a definition for "woman".


You have the right to refuse. Refusal may have consequences. Those consequences will not be severe in this case, since the most anyone here can do is dismiss your arguments or ignore you, but that's still a consequence. Make of that what you will.

LOL


And FWIW, you can refer to my explanation of what "valid lived condition" means, in the very post of mine which I wrote concurrently with this post of yours. Or, of course, you could go to literally any authoritative, reliable source for a definition of "valid lived condition" (or male/female/man/woman), seeing as you're wondering what those terms mean as they apply to gender dysphoria and transidentity, and you're reading/participating in a thread which is all about gender dysphoria and transidentity.

(I'm wondering whether you'd perhaps go into a thread about astronomy and ask one of its participants for "their" definition of terms such as "light year" "parsec" "moon" or "standard candle" - as they apply strictly to discussions about astronomy.....)



ETA: I recall being "challenged"(!) on "my" definition of "woman" in a transidentity context. I don't recall being "challenged"(!) on "my" definition of "valid lived condition" (that Ron Obvious post was a stand-alone observation of his/hers). But as I've now repeated several times, none of these are "my" definitions. They are the definitions which are generally-accepted and adopted among every serious real-world body/institution/government in the context of gender dysphoria and transidentity. So, y'know, people who are genuinely interested can always go and look them up themselves.

 

[Butter!]

I think it's a metaphor - "assigned" by nature, or gestation, or fate, or whatever you want to call it. I don't have any problem with that language, although my understanding is that some intersex people feel it was appropriated from them.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's the same thing.

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.

In principle, the technology that is hypothetical from science fiction could make this possible?

Beyond that, I think your brain-scan hypothesis assumes that there's a single set of neural elements that can completely define a behavior.

Let's assume for this that you're suggesting that a clearly-bounded and well-defined set of discrete elements can be observed to produce a particular behavior, rather than a single element. I think that's a reasonable assumption.

Now I would like to challenge that approach. I don't see a reason to assume a set of defined elements. The end-state (bipolar disorder or gender dysphoria, or any other behavioral disorder) isn't binary, for one thing. They exist in varying degrees. Based on behavior, I'd guess that my mom and my aunt are both very slightly bipolar, where my sister is middling bipolar. I've met people who are extremely bipolar. That suggests that the set of elements aren't digital but are analogue, for one thing.

But beyond that, I doubt it's a well-defined set to begin with. I think it's more likely to be a very loose cluster of possible contributors. Further more, I suspect that the cluster in question can express in multiple ways, not all of which would fit the definition of a specific behavioral disorder.

So rather than it being a one-to-one relationship (which you seem to assume, and which is likely assumed by the brain-scan hypothesis) I suspect it's a many-to-many relationship.

One thing to bear in mind is that thoughts, conditioning, and behavior are affected by neural infrastructure... but they also affect the infrastructure itself. It's a feedback loop between perception, cognition, and structure. That's part of why neural plasticity is such a wrench in the works when it comes to behavior (psychology and psychiatry as opposed to neurology).

It's pretty well demonstrated that if a person is told a thing enough times, they can come to believe it to be true, even when it's not - especially when those things are qualitative as opposed to quantitative. A child told over and over that they're dumb will believe that they are dumb, regardless of any objective measure of their intelligence. This works for self-talk as well, which is why a lot of visualization techniques are effective.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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?

Woohoo! We're right back around to "females are the REAL oppressors, they're the evil one!"

Gotta love the long history of women being discriminated against, abused, and literally kept as property as "delusion".

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't agree in the slightest. If people genuinely were caring and compassionate towards transpeople then the thread title wouldn't have been repeated 5 times for a start, we wouldn't see people posting 'funny' pictures about denying biology, I wouldn't have had to block half a dozen posters from this thread and we wouldn't have the cabal of old white men dripping every post with condescension.

it's why I've given up on this thread. Only checking back every few weeks to see if the usual suspects are still harping on about the same crap.

Of course all the transphobes like to paint themselves as 'reasonable' and 'caring for transpeople' and I bet some of their best friends are black too.

Yep. This.

Every single time I dip back into this thread, and I try to address some of the attitudes and opinions being offered up within it, I imagine how a similar thread (had internet forums been around) in, say, the 1950s might have looked, entitled "Gay males are genuinely sexually attracted to other males". And I suspect that many of the posts - on both "sides" - could have been reproduced almost verbatim (with "transwomen" switched to "gay men", and so on).


(Cue - of course - attempted protests along the lines of "None of the principles related to homosexuality and transidentity are in any way similar!" from some of the people who still delude themselves that none of the principles related to homosexuality and transidentity are in any way similar )

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Does that hold true for other mammals? Are some female bovines bulls? Are some male horses mares? How can we tell whether a given deer is a doe or a stag? How can I figure out whether my cat is a tom or a queen?

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.

No, it doesn't make it factual. The diagnosis is based on self-perception and at best some behaviors, which are significantly influenced by society. A diagnosis doesn't make her claim to be a woman factually true - at best it makes her claim to believe herself to be a woman true. Similarly, a diagnosis of body integrity disorder doesn't make a fully-legged person be factually an amputee, does it?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It is other people's business when her own opinion is being used to obligate other people to grant her access to places that we would not normally allow her to be. It's other people's business when her belief is being used to try to leverage entitlements from everyone else.

If the internal feeling of being a woman affected nobody except for the belief-holder, none of us would have any argument with it. It's specifically because that feeling is being used in actual policy in ways that very clearly (and often very negatively) affect other people that we care.

 

[Elaedith]

Similarly, a diagnosis of body integrity disorder doesn't make a fully-legged person be factually an amputee, does it?

If transabled activists managed to get the definition of BID re-written to remove the word 'disorder' from the title and placed into a chapter of its own when the next revision of the DSM comes around, apparently it will.