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

[Olmstead]

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 )

You could also reproduce the posts verbatim talking about transableism. Or transracial people.

It's almost as if your analogy is completely meaningless.

 

[Butter!]

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 )

Are you counting me amongst them?

If so, hell with you. I only ever wanted to discuss sports and language ("gender" vs. "sex," "spectrums," etc.). I welcome trans women, as women, into any space I occupy or control.

You and AGG should just say to my face that you think I'm a terf. I bet it would feel good.

And with that, I don't think I can contribute anything else productive today. I've lost my temper. There it goes.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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).

I'm not interested in engaging in this thread again (for the time being anyway) but I will just say that no I wasn't implying you were a transphobe. I was objecting to the idea being repeatedly put forward (not just by you either) that all the anti-trans posters here are reasonable, evidence driven, caring, compassionate human beings who only want what's best for everyone including transpeople. That's not how I would characterise the majority of the content on this thread at all.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And (IMO) central to the manifestation of this in the case of attitudes to gender dysphoria etc is set of beliefs - borne of societal conditioning - which many people come to treat as more-or-less axiomatic and inviolable: that gender is 1) fixed and immutable, and 2) inflexibly tied to (and effectively interchangeable with) biological sex, and 3) for any person to claim otherwise must be either mentally ill or lying.

This is a very odd strawman. It seems as if you haven't read, or haven't understood the actual positions expressed in this thread.

For example, most of the gender critical posters do NOT think that gender is fixed and immutable. I for one (and several others) feel that gender roles, expressions, etc. are socially constructed, and can change over time - both socially as well as personally. On the other hand, it has been some of the trans-activists who have argued that gender identity is fixed and immutable, particularly as justification for the application of puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones to minors.

Furthermore, many of us have pointed out that the socially constructed gender roles and expressions are reliant on the existence of physical biological differences in the sexes.

Finally, a claim that is counter to those arguments does not necessitate that the claimant is mentally ill nor that they are lying. Some are uninformed, some have differing opinions. But at least *some* have repeatedly misconstrued the arguments of others, and at least *some* of the self-proclaimed transgender people out there in the world are actually mentally ill. Others are simply anti-science in favor of belief, particularly those that assert that biological sex isn't binary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Oh, I already addressed this question. But likewise, maybe I'll ask you:

Please provide me with links 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 the solution. Thanks!

Did you? Because I can't seem to find your response. Can you provide a link to your post, please?

 

[Emily's Cat]

"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 "gay man" to make the claim "gay men are genuinely sexually attracted to men" 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 "gay men should be treated as people who are sexually attracted to men" or something like that."


(For the avoidance of doubt: the above paragraph in italics is not my actual belief - quite the opposite, in fact. It's a literary device to show deficiencies in the post to which I'm responding here)

This doesn't work. The actual legitimate definition of "gay man" is a male who is sexually attracted to other males". It doesn't entail any other claims at all. It's a clear and consistent definition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

As I recall, at certain points in history, a fair few academics also cited "the negative effects of ideological interference in science" when it came to the recognition of gay rights and black civil rights....

And now we're looking at the negative effects of ideological interference in science affecting the rights of females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not the definition of "woman" - as it applies in the context of gender dysphoria and transgender studies - that is in generally-accepted usage within medical/sociological/legislative fields.

I think it may be better, and more instructive to the debate, to stick to the terms/definitions which are in generally-accepted usage by the real-world experts and legislators.... rather than trying to interrogate individual posters in an online forum as to how they think that terms are defined.

Throughout this thread, you've made repeated appeals to hypothetical authority with respect to the definition of woman... but you still haven't actually provided a non-tautological definition.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I just looked up Boudicca in the member list. Scrolling through her posts, I see that she is a Communist and a member of the DSA. Based on that, I'm stipulating that her claims probably are crap. My grandmother was a Communist when she was young, but she disavowed that label when she found out that Stalin was in league with Hitler. It's become apparent in the last few years that this "red-brown alliance" is resurgent. So yes, Boudicca has lost my support.

What on earth do her political preferences have to do with the merit of her position with respect to gender dysphoria?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe this will help you understand why what you're stating is both wrong and offensive:

We are discussing the difference between the claim "gay males genuinely believe (themselves) to be sexually attracted solely to males" and "gay males are sexually attracted solely to males". You know, the part about where the brain state argument only supports the former and not the latter?

This analogy is completely inapt. Sexual attraction is observably true, and can even be measured. There is no reasonably coherent definition of "sexually attracted" for which the claim that gay males are sexually attracted to other males is false.


That's not the case for transwomen's claims to be women. It's not observably true, nor is it measurable.

 

[Lithrael]

Butter IMO in this thread is the textbook example of how these emotional and occasionally vitriolic discussions exert a radicalizing pressure on actual well meaning moderates. It happens on message boards all the time.

Moderate person starts out with their own comfortable understanding of the situation. Extremist talks about ‘horrible things x and y that Group are doing!’ Moderate goes ‘wow is that true? I hadn’t thought that was happening, but I read the thing you posted and it sounds bad. It would be bad if Group is really doing x and y.” Member of Group who is on their last nerve says something mean about anyone that would think Group really wants to do x and y. Moderate assumes something mean is directed squarely at them and gets understandably upset. Starts to think maybe Extremist might have a point, or at least Group wasn’t as nice as they thought.

 

[Collin237]

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.

My guess is the third. I would assume that the detailed discussion in the recording is his real opinion, and the tweet is disingenuous.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It doesn't define woman at all in that reference. Can you quote the portion that you believe defines "woman"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

(Oh, and mainstream medical/sociological thinking is that the "transabled" phenomenon is not a valid lived condition - and that therefore those who hold themselves to be "transabled" are indeed aberrant to some degree. So your repetition is absolutely not analagous in the only important way. On the other hand, homosexuality and gender dysphoria/transidentity are both classed as valid lived conditions, so......)

You've repeated this slogan ad nauseum too. You've never provided a description or a definition of what a "valid lived condition" is, nor have you provided any evidence that the "mainstream medical.sociological/other-appeal-to-hypothetical-authority" holds that same view.

Just because you wrap fancy and undefined jargon around something and insist that "experts" agree, doesn't actually make it true.

 

[Meadmaker]

You've repeated this slogan ad nauseum too. You've never provided a description or a definition of what a "valid lived condition" is, nor have you provided any evidence that the "mainstream medical.sociological/other-appeal-to-hypothetical-authority" holds that same view.

Just because you wrap fancy and undefined jargon around something and insist that "experts" agree, doesn't actually make it true.

I think I understand what a "valid lived condition" is.

I don't understand what an "invalid lived condition" would be.

 

[The Atheist]

Also, no offense to the original OP as I know what meaning he intended, but seriously - the title of this thread. It's awful. It's probably responsible for the fact that so many new people enter this discussion with the assumption that it's overtly hostile to trans rights. Can we change it?

How about this - if it spills over into a 6th installment, can we call THAT thread something else?

I couldn't care less, so feel free to ask the mods, but the point remains - they aren't women and won't ever be.

While I agree that the title might make people think it's immediately anti, I feel that changing it would be giving in to the exact type of squeaky wheel I'd like to prevent.

And on a non-human sports level, if horse racing were strictly the best vs the best, it would soon become near unwatchable. Alternatively, if we force the better horses to carry additional weights to handicap their performance (which is what happens in the majority of horse racing), we get something more watchable (and bettable, of course).

And that's palpably incorrect in many ways, but since the thread isn't about horses, I'll just note that elite races are at set weights based on age and gender.

Gender, hmmm.

 

[Meadmaker]

I
And that's palpably incorrect in many ways, but since the thread isn't about horses, I'll just note that elite races are at set weights based on age and gender.

Gender, hmmm.

Ruffian was clearly expressing the gender role of a male horse, so it is utterly bigoted to call him a filly.

(For those for whom Ruffian was before your time, Ruffian was a female horse who could run very fast. In the 1970s, a "Battle of the Sexes" race between her and recent Kentucky Derby winner Foolish Pleasure was arranged. As I recall, the outcome was very much in doubt, and Ruffian wasn't given any sort of advantage to compensate for her sex.

Sadly, Ruffian collapsed during the race, and broke her leg, and was euthanized.)

 

[Olmstead]

I think I understand what a "valid lived condition" is.

I don't understand what an "invalid lived condition" would be.

What I can infer from his posts:

Valid lived condition: transgenderism, not a mental disorder, mustn't be treated

Invalid lived condition: transableism, mental disorder, must be treated

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I DEMAND YOU ACKNOWLEDGE I HAVE FIVE FINGERS ON EACH HAND!"
"NO YOU HAVE FOUR FINGERS AND A THUMB!"
"STOP DENYING THE NUMBER OF FINGERS! LOOK I CAN COUNT THEM! FIVE!"
"I AM COUNTING! I ONLY COUNT FOUR!"

Wash, rinse, repeat.

This conversation can't go anywhere until we either

A) Agree on Man/Woman/Male/Female demarcation and language even if only for the purpose of this discussion.

or

B) Stop pretending like we can define an argument into existence.

or

C) At least stop pretending that we don't understand that everyone isn't using the same definition, even if we don't agree with how they are using it and respond to their argument using their definitions and not our own, again even if we disagree with them.

 

[Collin237]

Ruffian was clearly expressing the gender role of a male horse, so it is utterly bigoted to call him a filly.

(For those for whom Ruffian was before your time, Ruffian was a female horse who could run very fast. In the 1970s, a "Battle of the Sexes" race between her and recent Kentucky Derby winner Foolish Pleasure was arranged. As I recall, the outcome was very much in doubt, and Ruffian wasn't given any sort of advantage to compensate for her sex.

Sadly, Ruffian collapsed during the race, and broke her leg, and was euthanized.)

You might inadvertently have a point. If it could be established, by taking motion-capture readings and putting them through pattern-matching software, that a distinction can be made between "moving like a male" and "moving like a female", then the debate between sex and gender could be dropped, and everyone could just defer to the software.