• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TomB said:
Female: of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) which can be fertilized by male gametes.

Male: of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.
(https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=female+definition#dobs=female)

Woman: A person whose internal self-image is that of being female regardless of their physical phenotype.

Man: A person whose internal self-image is that of being female regardless of their physical phenotype.
Click to expand...


Here's the problem with those definitions, and it isn't just wordplay.

No transwoman thinks she produces eggs, nor does she have "an internal image" of being able to produce eggs. Whatever it is that she thinks makes her a female, it isn't egg production, nor indeed anything about reproduction or genitalia.

ETA: However, they do have the right to produce eggs.
 
Last edited:
Elaedith said:
I still need to do some reading up on this when I get time, but my current understanding is that autogynephilia is not necessarily proposed as an alternative to gender dysphoria, but as an alternative mechanism driving dysphoria.

One of the problems with distinguishing different underlying mechanisms driving dysphoria in diagnosis is that the DSM is atheoretical by intent (it is supposed to avoid theoretical explanations of observed symptoms and to be based on purely descriptive and statistical methods).
Click to expand...


I think that's right. Some AGP men really are dysphoric and it's not fair to say they're not "true trans" while at the same time accepting extremely feminine gay men who like to act out femininity as such. There are plenty AGP men who never cross-dress out of their own home and haven't the slightest intention of transitioning, too.

It seems more as if there is a toxic combination of AGP and narcissism which isn't a terribly uncommon mix, and these guys become super-obnoxious and entitled. They're also extremely high-profile and vocal and often gravitate to be the leaders of the TRA movements. I suspect also that exposure to these guys can suck other less extreme personalities into their orbit.

These guys are a fairly small subset of everyone who identifies as a transwoman but they're vocal and active and they are the ones driving the movement and influencing the authorities, so they're trouble. And while they're in the driving seat and it's their extreme misogyny (apparently rooted in jealousy, as they despise the women they want to be but never can be) that is dictating policy, I want the entire boiling of them shut out from all women's spaces, lock the door, set the bolts and get the boiling oil ready.
 
Meadmaker said:
No transwoman thinks she produces eggs, nor does she have "an internal image" of being able to produce eggs. Whatever it is that she thinks makes her a female, it isn't egg production, nor indeed anything about reproduction or genitalia.
Click to expand...

How do you know? You can't read anyone's mind. I've had some pretty bizarre "internal images" myself occasionally. I certainly would never share them with someone I think might hate me!
 
Collin237 said:
How do you know? You can't read anyone's mind. I've had some pretty bizarre "internal images" myself occasionally. I certainly would never share them with someone I think might hate me!
Click to expand...

I have been reliably informed that they are not delusional. They are not able to produce eggs. If they had an internal image of themselves as egg producers, that would be a delusion.
 
Meadmaker said:
I have been reliably informed that they are not delusional. They are not able to produce eggs. If they had an internal image of themselves as egg producers, that would be a delusion.
Click to expand...

A feeling that one knows to be imaginary is NOT a delusion!
 
Meadmaker said:
However, they do have the right to produce eggs.
Click to expand...

I would say "they have the right to schedule their sex lives by day of the month like women, rather than by hour of the day like men". I would never even mention the word "egg". That's what I mean by style of argumentation.
 
Collin237 said:
A feeling that one knows to be imaginary is NOT a delusion!
Click to expand...

Ok. So they have a feeling that they can produce eggs, but they know they can't produce eggs? I don't think that's it, and here is the thing that matters about that.

The basic party line TRA position is that being a woman isn't about reproduction. Just because you can get pregnant doesn't mean that you are not a man. So, men can have babies, and they can have babies while they are men, because that whole baby thing isn't what being a woman is really all about. It's about....uhhh....something.



If we were to take that "internal image" defintiion at face value, it would mean that, during the act of giving birth, even though they happen to be passing a live human through their birth canal, their self image is that they can make sperm, but they aren't delusional.

And for males, even though their wife has three children that look like them, their self image is that of a someone who produces eggs, so they should be able to seen teenage girls naked. (Ok. You don't think anyone should see teenage girls naked, but until all the architecture is reworked, they can.)
 
Collin237 said:
I would say "they have the right to schedule their sex lives by day of the month like women, rather than by hour of the day like men". I would never even mention the word "egg". That's what I mean by style of argumentation.
Click to expand...

It was a reference to The Life of Brian.
 
Meadmaker said:
If we were to take that "internal image" defintiion at face value, it would mean that, during the act of giving birth, even though they happen to be passing a live human through their birth canal, their self image is that they can make sperm, but they aren't delusional.
Click to expand...

That would cause the labor to fail and require an emergency C-section. I was assuming that "internal image" meant something with no physical effect. I guess I was mistaken in that definition. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Style guides evidently disagree. For that matter, human resources may well disagree if you happen to work for one of those progressive corporations where you're generally expected not to misgender coworkers.

Here we must simply disagree.

First off, let's be clear that I'm not asking you to adopt the definitions which I intend to use herein this thread. Some people seem to think that everyone should restrict their pronoun usage strictly to denotation of biological sex, but I'm not nearly so evangelical as all that.

I don't believe anyone claimed my definitions would make it easy to "determine the truth-value of the claim that transwomen are women." Indeed, the truth value of the claim "trans women are generally subjected to the cultural expectations typically associated with femininity" can safely be assumed to vary from place to place, time to time, and perhaps even individual to individual. We can probably safely assume trans women living stealth are indeed subjected to the usual gendered expectations, to include she/her/ma'am and all that.
Click to expand...

If your definition of "woman" can not be used to determine the truth-value of the claim under question that "transwomen are women" then it's a pretty useless definition, wouldn't you think?

Also, it's inconsistent with your statement about "misgendering" coworkers - if "man/woman" is defined by what pronoun others use for you (pronoun use being the only example you've given of this "expectation to perform masculinity/femininity") then it's literally impossible to "misgender" someone. As the mere fact of using the pronoun "he" would make the person in question a man, and hence no matter what pronoun you use you'd always be correct. This problem is due to the circularity in your definitions, namely "he = refers to a man" + "man = whoever is referred to with he".

Lastly, if we assume your position that you choose a pronoun based on the most conscious gender signals given off by an individual, and that this choice of pronoun defines who is a man or a woman, then your definition reduces to the circular "a woman is anyone who identifies as a woman" with an irrelevant change of words from "identifies as" to "gives conscious signals of."
 
theprestige said:
My guess is that trans rights activism is just that toxic.
Click to expand...

No. Anti trans rights activism is toxic. There's plenty evidence of that right here in this thread, and it's still going on. I mean seriously, "egg production"? WTF?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
If your definition of "woman" can not be used to determine the truth-value of the claim under question that "transwomen are women" then it's a pretty useless definition, wouldn't you think?
Click to expand...
I do not. In point of fact, I think that is a rather silly proposition to spend our time chasing down, given that there are far more pressing and concrete issues to address such as who gets the opportunity to play rugby in the female leagues.

caveman1917 said:
...if "man/woman" is defined by what pronoun others use for you...
Click to expand...
Responding to gendered pronouns is just one of many gendered expectations which English-speaking people have of one another. Happens to be one of the more obvious ones, though.

caveman1917 said:
(pronoun use being the only example you've given of this "expectation to perform masculinity/femininity")
Click to expand...
You must have missed the part about women's vs. men's clothing upthread.

caveman1917 said:
...it's literally impossible to "misgender" someone.
Click to expand...
Keep telling yourself that while HR politely explains why you're being let go for strictly using pronouns associated with birth sex.

caveman1917 said:
This problem is due to the circularity in your definitions, namely "he = refers to a man" + "man = whoever is referred to with he".
Click to expand...
If you want to show circularity in my definitions it would help to actually cite them.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I'm genuinely curious about something. When I type "discriminate" into google, the definition I gave was definition 1. The definition you gave, with a very slight wording change, was definition 2.

Did yours show up as definition 1?
Click to expand...

It's probably because you typed "discriminate" (the verb) whereas he typed "discrimination" (the noun) so it changed which one was given first and then the other given second.
 
Meadmaker said:
One thing that AGG has not misrepresented is my opinion on the subject of the thread title. I do indeed say that transwomen are not women.


I have no objection to being labelled transphobic on that account, if it makes anyone happy to do so. If this be transphobia, then let's make the most of it.
Click to expand...



"One thing that XYZ has not misrepresented is my opinion on the subject of the thread title "Gayers are mentalists". I do indeed say that homosexuals are mentally ill when they believe they're sexually attracted to other people of their own sex.

"I have no objection to being labelled homophobic on that account, if it makes anyone happy to do so. If this be homophobia, then let's make the most of it."


(NB: this is not my own actual opinion - in fact it's quite the opposite. Just so that's clear....)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom