• 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.
Joe Random said:
The example I like to use is my height vs my 'stature'. A woman's on-line dating profile says she's only interested in men over 6'4". My 5'9" self shows up and tells her I may only be 5'9" physically, but my internal sense of stature is 6'6", so she's a bigot if she says she's not interested. Kinda don't think that would fly, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

True.


Although in this case my intent was actually just to make fun of the "assigned at birth" phraseology that's so common.

I don't think I should be stuck with the birthdate that was assigned to me at birth.
 
Joe Random said:
The example I like to use is my height vs my 'stature'. A woman's on-line dating profile says she's only interested in men over 6'4". My 5'9" self shows up and tells her I may only be 5'9" physically, but my internal sense of stature is 6'6", so she's a bigot if she says she's not interested. Kinda don't think that would fly, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

Saying something like that would not make sense. But it would make sense for someone to say that they're trans, whether they've transitioned, and if not whether they'd be willing to transition for the purpose of a lifelong relationship. And it would be bigoted for the other person to criticize one for mentioning it.

I guess my previous post wasn't so irrelevant after all.
 
Meadmaker said:
Although in this case my intent was actually just to make fun of the "assigned at birth" phraseology that's so common.
Click to expand...

You said "thank God" a few posts ago. I assume you don't believe in God. I also assume that people who say "assigned at birth" don't believe that an actual assignment occurs at birth.

And the UK's article of definition that was linked to earlier doesn't count, any more than the U.S.'s article of definition saying that corporations are people.
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
Saying something like that would not make sense. But it would make sense for someone to say that they're trans, whether they've transitioned, and if not whether they'd be willing to transition for the purpose of a lifelong relationship. And it would be bigoted for the other person to criticize one for mentioning it.

I guess my previous post wasn't so irrelevant after all.
Click to expand...


Nope.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
You're right, I've been taking it for granted.

Whether or not trans people are valid is the pivotal question to this whole thing.
If they are, arguments from consequences really don't matter. If trans identity is valid, then us cis people simply cannot deny them their rights simply because we don't like the consequences of that.

I don't really understand how there can be a middle ground on that issue. Either trans identity is valid, and they should be respected as a civil right, or they are not and these people should be treated as delusional.

If they are not, then it's fair game to discriminate against them in pretty much every circumstance as delusional weirdos.

I think it's pretty clear that trans identity is not delusion, but I'm not sure how you can "prove" that any more than you can "prove" that gay people also aren't mental defectives.
Click to expand...


It actually isn't, in this setting. There are people out there (the actual transphobes that everyone in this thread has been accused of being by some) who regard transgender identity as invalid, but they're not driving the arguments in this thread.

Some people have valid identities as Christians, without having the civil right to follow the dictates of foundational Christian scriptures by killing witches.

Some people have valid identities as gentlemen of honor, without having the civil right to fight duels.

Some people have valid identities as naturists, without having the civil right to shop naked in supermarkets.

Some people have valid identities as gay men, without having the civil right to perform sex acts in public.

What's so different about "some people have valid identities as trans women, without having the civil right to expose their penises in women's changing rooms"?

Equating a valid identity with having every single civil right that someone with such an identity could possibly want to have (and equivalently, equating denial of specific rights with denial of valid identity) is a political tactic that's no less fallacious when employed by progressives as when employed by libertarians or the religious right.
 
Meadmaker said:
True.


Although in this case my intent was actually just to make fun of the "assigned at birth" phraseology that's so common.

I don't think I should be stuck with the birthdate that was assigned to me at birth.
Click to expand...


Can't seem to find references to it now, but a couple of years ago there was a case in (I think) the UK where a 50-60 year old man publicly 'identified' as a pre-teen girl, to the point of having 'parents' in a photo op with him. Between that and Rachel Dolezal we're pretty much at a point where the only rational response to someone saying "I identify as <x>" is "Yes, and so what?".
 
Collin237 said:
You said "thank God" a few posts ago. I assume you don't believe in God. I also assume that people who say "assigned at birth" don't believe that an actual assignment occurs at birth.

And the UK's article of definition that was linked to earlier doesn't count, any more than the U.S.'s article of definition saying that corporations are people.
Click to expand...

You are right that I don't believe in God.

I'm pretty sure that the people who say "assigned at birth" really think that an assignment occurs at birth.

Maybe one of them can correct me.
 
Myriad said:
It actually isn't, in this setting. There are people out there (the actual transphobes that everyone in this thread has been accused of being by some) who regard transgender identity as invalid, but they're not driving the arguments in this thread.

Some people have valid identities as Christians, without having the civil right to follow the dictates of foundational Christian scriptures by killing witches.

Some people have valid identities as gentlemen of honor, without having the civil right to fight duels.

Some people have valid identities as naturists, without having the civil right to shop naked in supermarkets.

Some people have valid identities as gay men, without having the civil right to perform sex acts in public.

What's so different about "some people have valid identities as trans women, without having the civil right to expose their penises in women's changing rooms"?

Equating a valid identity with having every single civil right that someone with such an identity could possibly want to have (and equivalently, equating denial of specific rights with denial of valid identity) is a political tactic that's no less fallacious when employed by progressives as when employed by libertarians or the religious right.
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes it would. But gender identity has nothing whatsoever to do with biological reproductive function. It's entirely to do with sociological and societal expectations and preconceptions.
Click to expand...

Sociological expectations about what? Societal preconceptions about what?

Every non-biological expectation and preconception about women that I can think of is a stereotype. Many (most? all?) of them should be de-normalized. None of them should be required of women. They should absolutely not be the basis of any public policy.

I'm agnostic about whether they should be the basis of any medical guidelines. I suspect not, but I am not an authority on gender dysphoria and the best-known courses of treatment.

Can you give at least a partial list of sociological and societal expectations and preconceptions you think transwomen should conform to?
 
Last edited:
Collin237 said:
In order to convince me of that, you'd need a survey of TRAs evaluating those opinions as to whether they count as "trans-exclusionary". But since you have no evidence that those opinions appear anywhere except my own writing, that would prove only that you were spamming them.
Click to expand...

You really should read the thread.
 
Thinking about Tom's definition.

I asked for a non-circular definition of "woman" that includes cis-women and transwomen, and excludes transmen.

Tom's definition works. I think.

Earlier attempts included variations on "feminine gender roles", and my objection to those were that they were either circular, because "femnine" gender roles were the ones expected for women or, if not circular, they literally defined women by their behavior, thus saying that women who were insufficiently feminine for society's taste weren't really women at all.

Tom's definition has a different problem. It defines "woman" as an internal state, frequently corresponding to, but not identical with, an external, measureable, reality known as "female". If you expect people to treat you in accordance with your self image, and that image doesn't match reality, then you are delusional. When it comes to women's private spaces, and women's participation on sports teams, what really and truly matters is that external, measureable, reality. Females really are athletically disadvantaged when compared to males. Females really experience sex and pregnancy differently than males. Those are the issues that matter. Tom's definition is either equivalent to "A woman is anyone who thinks she is a woman", which is circular, or it asks us to respect a delusion, or it is of no value. Having defined "woman" according to Tom's definition, we would then take down the signs over the locker rooms that say "men" and "women" and replace them with "male" and "female".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I understand the usefulness of sex segregated spaces. However, somewhat recent acceptance that portions of the population do not fall into the heteronormative standard challenges the underpinnings of such a policy. A sex segregated space is not guarantee to be a lust free environment.

Even then, I concede that, since most of the population is straight, cis people, sex segregation greatly reduces the the extent that these sensitive spaces are sexualized. We should not bury our heads in the sand to defend this practice simply because it works for the majority. Queer people do not experience these sex segregated spaces in the same way we do, and if the goal is to maximize privacy, safety, and comfort, their viewpoint should also be considered and adjustments made.

It seems to me the best way to ensure such a thing is to increase the amount of personal privacy available in these spaces and no longer assume that communal, sex-segregated spaces are a complete solution.





I don't know who Zuby is. perhaps you can ask this question another way.



You're right, I've been taking it for granted.

Whether or not trans people are valid is the pivotal question to this whole thing.

If they are, arguments from consequences really don't matter. If trans identity is valid, then us cis people simply cannot deny them their rights simply because we don't like the consequences of that.

I don't really understand how there can be a middle ground on that issue. Either trans identity is valid, and they should be respected as a civil right, or they are not and these people should be treated as delusional.

If they are not, then it's fair game to discriminate against them in pretty much every circumstance as delusional weirdos.

I think it's pretty clear that trans identity is not delusion, but I'm not sure how you can "prove" that any more than you can "prove" that gay people also aren't mental defectives.
Click to expand...

The relevant question is whether trans people and cis people of the same gender actually do usually get along peacefully in prisons and shelters. If there's evidence that they do, then I reverse my opinions on the matter.
 
LondonJohn said:
I.... just.... had.....a.......feeling you'd handwave away the (obvious and pertinent) analogy in this way. In a way, I'm glad I wasn't surprised : )
Click to expand...
I mean, really, you should have known your analogy wouldn't succeed.

Collin237 said:
False analogy. It's not possible to reverse the aging process. It is possible to have one's genitalia surgically altered.
Click to expand...
I am not at all surprised that this analogy has failed.
 
Joe Random said:
The example I like to use is my height vs my 'stature'. A woman's on-line dating profile says she's only interested in men over 6'4". My 5'9" self shows up and tells her I may only be 5'9" physically, but my internal sense of stature is 6'6", so she's a bigot if she says she's not interested. Kinda don't think that would fly, and for good reason.
Click to expand...

I like this. My height is 5'8", and my age is _8. But my stature is about 6'2", and my maturity is 20/70 (all the energy and optimism of sophomoric youth, all the wisdom and pragmatism of venerable age).
 
Definitions.

A woman is whomever it is convenient to consider to be a woman.

A man is whomever it is convenient to consider to be a man.

There, gets rid of all the waffle.
 
Olmstead said:
Definitions.

A woman is whomever it is convenient to consider to be a woman.

A man is whomever it is convenient to consider to be a man.

There, gets rid of all the waffle.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:

Now can we start talking about what really matters? Like the question I just asked SuburbanTurkey?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom