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

[caveman1917]

Turns out that it is not just the "cotton ceiling" for lesbians who won't date transwomen but there's a "boxer ceiling" for gay men who won't date transmen too.

 

[d4m10n]

https://twitter.com/daandyboy/status/933072085492142082

Amazeballs.

 

[Ziggurat]

https://twitter.com/daandyboy/status/933072085492142082

Amazeballs.

The body piercings and the died hair?

It's a form of aposematism.

 

[d4m10n]

It's a form of aposematism.

But seriously I'm hold enough to remember when liberals said it was toxic to tell gays whom they ought to find sexually attractive.

 

[Myriad]

But seriously I'm hold enough to remember when liberals said it was toxic to tell gays whom they ought to find sexually attractive.

Yep, and also when attitudes based on the notion that access to sex was more important than a potential partner's preferences, desires, or consent was called "rape culture."

Think of how much time MRAs have wasted calling reluctant women "teases" or "c-words." If they'd thought of calling them "regressive misandrists" and "phallophobic bigots" they could have got 'em locked up in the house barefoot by now.

 

[theprestige]

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Perhaps your statement should be modified to something like:

This particular thread is foundering because the "anti-TRA side" refuses to accept (or even, apparently, notice) that at least one "TRA side" poster has now repeatedly supplied definitions - the "anti-TRA side" mendaciously pretends instead that no such definitions have been provided, and uses that (entirely incorrect) conclusion as some sort of weapon to attack the "TRA side"

: rolleyes :

Thank you for the correction. I apologize for casting aspersions.

From the link, it seems we agree on using "woman" for the social construct, "female" for the biological fact, and that transwomen are female. This should help our discussion about rights and policy be more clear and less confusing. Thanks again for that!

Out of curiosity, what was your reason for linking to the UK Office for National Statistics definitions, rather than just stating them as your own definitions in your own words?

 

[caveman1917]

Well here's my experience with that, though it might be not be entirely representative given that it was in context of a social-anarchist-liberal setting at the very edge of the trans activist movement. So they wanted me to believe "transwomen are women" to be a true proposition, and after having gone through every fallacy they could muster, without ever producing a sound argument, they said they would "shame" me. At which point I couldn't help myself laughing for like 5 minutes before saying something to the effect of "Like I give a **** about your stupid shaming. If you want me to accept your claim then you have to provide a sound argument, it's that simple." Turns out I was 'cancelled' after at. It was the first time I was 'cancelled' - I got uncancelled and recancelled several times after that.

I got "cancelled" again.


This time for saying that sex in homo sapiens is binary. Interesting how that goes actually, I insult and disrespect them all the time but that's not what gets you cancelled. No, stating a perfectly true empirical fact...that is what gets you cancelled. Well the previous time was because I couldn't help myself mocking the nutty vegans again, but that one was a single exception, all the other times it was for stuff like this. What a hoot!

 

[caveman1917]

it seems we agree on using "woman" for the social construct

Effeminate gay men are women? Masculine lesbians are men? Sounds pretty regressive to me.

 

[theprestige]

Effeminate gay men are women? Masculine lesbians are men? Sounds pretty regressive to me.

One thing at a time.

 

[caveman1917]

One thing at a time.

Why one thing at a time? If you agree to that definition then you also have to agree to its consequences, they come together in one package and not "one at a time."

 

[Thermal]

Turns out that it is not just the "cotton ceiling" for lesbians who won't date transwomen but there's a "boxer ceiling" for gay men who won't date transmen too.

This is just the weirdest ****.

Of course A gay man wouldn't be down with a trans man. This is a contentious thing too? Wtf, guys?

I mean, if you are a straight guy, you are sexually attracted to the female body. Whip out a schlong and and sexual attraction abruptly withers. Same for a gay man or lesbian and their relative objects of desire.

Is the contention seriously that a gay man should be expected to overlook/ignore the fact that the partner's body before him is not of the sex he is attracted to? That's ridiculous.

 

[theprestige]

Why one thing at a time? If you agree to that definition then you also have to agree to its consequences, they come together in one package and not "one at a time."

Just getting to the definition has been kind of awkward. Probably my fault. But I'd like to make sure LondonJohn and I are on the same page about what the definition is, first. Then I'm happy to discuss the implications.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, you were like that before I arrived. But what about the few days when you had the opposite persona?

What opposite persona?

Your accusation lacks support and evidence.

Acceptance is a two-way street. She should have discussed it with them beforehand. Nobody has the right to expect that "you MUST accept who I am". Difficult situations require civil dialogue.

The entire team was fully supportive of allowing the transgirl to compete in the all girl team. There were no objections, no complaints, nothing.

When it came to an overnight stay with teenagers sharing rooms... the fact of one of them being biologically male, unchaperoned with females, because a different discussion. Then it's a question of whether male students should be allowed to share bedrooms with female students.

Some people thought "no, we shouldn't do mixed sex teenage overnights in unchaperoned conditions". Some people though "yes, it's fine, nothing is likely to happen". Some thought "put the transgirl in a room of her own, problem solved". Other people thought "if you put her in a different room, you're invalidating her identity and that's unacceptable".

That's all well and good... but again, the question is
What is your personal perspective for this scenario? If you were the adult in charge of this robots team, charged with the safety and security of all of the teens in your care, what would be your preferred solution?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Requiring definite answers to questions too loaded to reasonably answer reduces everyone's rights and safety. When you asked me the question openly, I gave an open answer, which you agreed with. Then someone asked me the same question again, with a lot of strings attached to make sure I had to answer something different. Wasn't there something like that in Shakespeare's play Othello?

What question were you asked that led you to change your position by 180 degrees?

 

[d4m10n]

Why one thing at a time? If you agree to that definition then you also have to agree to its consequences, they come together in one package and not "one at a time."

I don't believe you've shown how those supposed consequences would indeed follow from some particular defintion of "womanhood" or "manhood."

 

[caveman1917]

I don't believe you've shown how those supposed consequences would indeed follow from some particular defintion of "womanhood" or "manhood."

Woman = gender = a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of masculinity and femininity.

An effeminate gay man has the behaviours and attributes of femininity -> an effeminate gay man is a woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Total elimination of different fashions for men vs. women (not to mention youths vs. olds, urban vs. rural, white collar vs. blue collar, goths vs. drama kids etc.) strikes me as an unrealistic goal. Given the chance, people will dress to signal things about themselves and the groups with which they identify.

At a very, very minimum, there's going to be some different in tailoring simply because we're shaped differently. Boobs and hips make a notable difference in how the clothing is shaped.

Additionally, we're *still* a sexually reproductive species, and there will *continue* to be sexual selection involved. We will *continue* to signal sexual availability, and to try to attract the sexual interest of those we wish to 'mate' with. Even if it's only practice mating

Then you probably shouldn't assume—based solely on my sex—that I've never shaved my armpits and legs.

 

[Emily's Cat]

While I agree with you about LondonJohn's tendency to dismiss female concerns, I'd like to point out that the highlighted is debatable and may not be correct beyond a surface level. Yes, they have a male body. But they may not be treated as "one of the boys" growing up. I'm not positive, but I suspect that a male trans person may feel a bit isolated from thier peer groups growing up. Consequently, I'm not sure they experience the way society treats males in the same way cis-males do.

It would be an interesting question for Boudicca, were she still participating in the thread, assuming she was comfortable talking about it.

The other thing to point out: This statement seems to presume that the bulk of identity or personality results from environmental conditions and experiences. And that may be correct. But it also may be correct that a significant portion may be innate. There is a field called "behavioral genetics" for a reason.

If you consider the experience portion to represent everything significant in gender, you can make a case for lack of commonality between cis and trans women. But if you consider the genetic contribution significant, you can also make the case for significant overlap that is common between cis and trans women but not cis and trans men.

So how do you classify someone who has (in terms of behavior/gender, not sex) biological commonality with women but, due to sex, an environmental component closer to that of men? Could you truly say they are either?

Mauybe we're addressing "experience" in different ways.

Starting even before we're born, male and female fetus are addressed differently. Sex-based roles are so deeply ingrained, that parents speak differently, about different topics, and in different tones, to their developing child. We get "sweet little girls" and "bouncing baby boys". Parents tend to respond to a very actively kicking male infant with more positive tones than they do for females.

Once born, even if the parents do their very best to provide a gender neutral environment to their children... society as a whole doesn't. Boys get praised for being adventurous and boisterous and for taking initiative. Girls get praised for being quiet and calm and polite and unobtrusive. Boys receive positive reinforcement for speaking to their wants and desires, sharing their opinions, and taking strong positions on them Girls receive positive reinforcement when they provide for the wants and desires of others, especially if they set aside their own desires in order to make other people feel good.

Throughout their development from infant to adult, males are conditioned to expect that other people care about their desires, and that they should expect that others will attempt to fulfill their desires. Females are conditioned to sublimate their own desires, and to expect that voicing their desires places an unacceptable burden on others.

Whether or not a transperson has a particular interest in "typically female hobbies and interests" and vice versa isn't what I'm talking about. Heck, even if they actively dislike the way that society treats them and the expectations placed on them (speak up, be adventurous, go after what you want as if you deserve to get it)... That doesn't alter the conditioning that they've received.

When we look at the social media interactions of transgender people, we can still see the impact of that conditioning. If you look at the accounts and experiences of transmen, you can see the ingrained expectation to fade into the background and keep their opinions to themselves. They simply don't push in to exclusively male spaces if they aren't wanted there, they don't rally campaigns to force males to accept them as 100% indistinguishable from males. They just blend in to the best of their ability.

You can also see the conditioning among many transwomen, and that's one of the things that many females are pushing back on. We see transwomen assuming that they have a 'right' to our spaces, a 'right' to access our services, because they want it, they desire it. We persistently see the desires of transwomen being framed as more important than those of females, being prioritized above the rights and safety of females.

This isn't any different at all from what we see from other males. We frequently see the desires of men being placed above the needs of women. But at least in the past, we've had spaces and services that were specifically for us, where our needs and our safety was prioritized - simply because only females used them. Now, however, we're seeing those spaces and services invaded... and we are being told that our needs, our desires, our very safety is less important than the desire of males to be affirmed in their identity as women.

 

[Aber]

This is just the weirdest ****.

Of course A gay man wouldn't be down with a trans man. This is a contentious thing too? Wtf, guys?

Well, according to Stonewall:

HOMOSEXUAL
This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender.

https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/faqs-and-glossary/glossary-terms

GENDER
Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.

Therefore a gay cis man should be attracted to a trans man, otherwise he does not meet their definition of a homosexual.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm referring to the possibility of a biological component to gender (and by extension, being trans) that is separate from sex.

If we define sex as the physical body (100% biology), then we define gender a psychological characteristic.

Psychological characteristics, depending on your school of thought, can be a combination of innate and environmental factors.

Emily was speaking of the lived experiences of being a man or woman. She wasn't addressing the possibility of an innate component of that identity.

Consider a biological male, with the innate (biological) characteristics of gender normally linked to female biology, but with the experiences of being male.

Sex is clear: male.
Innate portion of gender: feminine
Experience portion of gender: masculine

So their gender is a combination of female (nature) and male (nurture). What do you call that? It's different from both the typical male and the typical female outcome.

I don't think there is a "psychological gender component" that is innate. I do, however, think that there are behaviorally innate sex differentiators. Might be a tricky thing to pull apart.

I think there are some innate behaviors that are evolutionarily produced as innate characteristics. We know that behaviors can be selected for (we breed dogs for behaviors, for example). And we know that humans are subjected to natural selection, and we also engage in sexual selection. We've had eons of evolution, and at least some behaviors are highly likely to be sex-differentiated.

Additionally, there are behavioral aspects that are directly driven by hormones. Much as females might dislike it, estrogen makes women more likely to react empathetically to others, to feel their pain and their joy as our own, and to make us cry at sappy commercials. Testosterone is known to contribute to aggressiveness and competitiveness.

Both of those categories are sex-driven, not gender-based. It's entirely reasonable to see some variation in magnitude of these behaviors from person to person, and likely to see overlap between males and females. It's also completely reasonable to expect that there will be some behaviors more commonly associated with the other apparent sex when the individual is intersex.

But there's not a sensible mechanism for which to expect that a non-intersex person who is gender dysphoric to have the innate behavioral characteristics of the opposite sex. Additionally, the exterior influence of societal expectations wouldn't reasonably produce pressures to neural plasticity effects in the opposite direction.

I can understand, and deeply empathize with, a cognitive disorder causing distress with a focus on one's sexed body.