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

[Collin237]

When he gets to "A whole lot of really loud and prominent TRAs are making transgender people look bad" we'll be in business.

I can handle it being phrased that way.

 

[theprestige]

I thought it was the DSM that said that transwomen are women, not the office of national statistics?

Technically the Stats office is just deferring to the UK government's definition.

While I'm willing to accept it as LJ's definition provisionally, I do think there's a problem with deferring to government definitions. Government definitions are ultimately about political expedience, rather than medical or scientific reality.

Hopefully they're based on sound medicine or science, but there's no guarantee. Especially in the social sciences.

In general, I'm not a fan of "the government says it, I believe it, that settles it", for any kind of definition (other than specifically the government's own definitions in law for its own government business).

But not for human rights, or gender identity. When LJ says that the proper authorities have already decided this question, one hopes he doesn't mean that the current UK government is the original authority for this decision. One hopes he means that actual medical authorities have reached a sound conclusion. And then one wonders why he doesn't cite them directly, or even indirectly.

I mean, if I told you that the proper authorities had already decided the question of black humanity, and established that black people were 5/8 as human as white people, you'd call me all sorts of unpleasant names. You'd start fantasizing about punching me in the face if you ever met me in the street. You'd tell me my precious government "authority" was wrong. You'd demand that I submit to actual science.

So I accept LJ's definition provisionally as *his* definition. And I accept it as the public policy definition of the UK government. But not as an authoritative definition from science.

It's good enough to discuss policy from a shared understanding of what we're talking about. But it definitely falls short of the claim that the authorities have an authoritative definition, in my opinion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay.



From what I've seen, it's not that simple. The question of how one can be declaring a gender but not choosing it, is in some cases answered by apparent TRAs by suggesting maybe it is a choice.

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/developing-gender-dysphoria/

https://clareflourish.wordpress.com...m-autogynephilia-late-onset-gender-dysphoria/

I don't know how she squares that circle.

There are a LOT of unsquared circles in this topic.

 

[Collin237]

This is perhaps the first time in its existence that the ACLU has taken a position that pits the presumed 'rights' of one group directly against the real rights of another group.

WTF do you think Charlottesville was?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That only works for things outside of one's body. Someone who has gender dysphoria, as an actual body dysphoria, is not going to feel much better just changing their behavior.

Perhaps, at least in some cases, the trans rights debate is a proxy war between Physicalists and Cartesian Dualists?

I submit for consideration the hypothesis that the majority of highly engaged activists for transgender rights do not have gender dysphoria (in your terms, "tucute"). They do not want a diagnosis to be a requirement, because they will not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

I further submit the hypothesis that the majority of highly engaged transgender activists are autogynephilic males, engaging in a sexual paraphilia.

I additionally submit for consideration that the activism of AGP males endangers the rights of both women and non-AGP gender dysphoric people.

 

[d4m10n]

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

Everyone I've ever met has at least some of the "behaviours and attributes of femininity" so you need to be a bit more nuanced than this.

I don't know what your sample size looks like here, or what culture you're coming from, but (AFAIK) effeminate men aren't generally expected to dress in women's clothing, shave their legs, put on makeup, respond to feminine pronouns, exhibit more empathy and compassion than other men, prioritize their partner and children in decisions involving work/life balance, etc. and so forth for all the various expectations which distinguish femininity from masculinity. I suppose they are expected to be a bit delicate in speech patterns and unusually fond of pastels, though. To put it more succinctly, these guys are effeminate compared to the Brawny guy, not compared to some truly feminine icon like Jenna Talackova.

 

[Collin237]

Technically the Stats office is just deferring to the UK government's definition.

While I'm willing to accept it as LJ's definition provisionally, I do think there's a problem with deferring to government definitions. Government definitions are ultimately about political expedience, rather than medical or scientific reality.

Hopefully they're based on sound medicine or science, but there's no guarantee. Especially in the social sciences.

In general, I'm not a fan of "the government says it, I believe it, that settles it", for any kind of definition (other than specifically the government's own definitions in law for its own government business).

But not for human rights, or gender identity. When LJ says that the proper authorities have already decided this question, one hopes he doesn't mean that the current UK government is the original authority for this decision. One hopes he means that actual medical authorities have reached a sound conclusion. And then one wonders why he doesn't cite them directly, or even indirectly.

I mean, if I told you that the proper authorities had already decided the question of black humanity, and established that black people were 5/8 as human as white people, you'd call me all sorts of unpleasant names. You'd start fantasizing about punching me in the face if you ever met me in the street. You'd tell me my precious government "authority" was wrong. You'd demand that I submit to actual science.

So I accept LJ's definition provisionally as *his* definition. And I accept it as the public policy definition of the UK government. But not as an authoritative definition from science.

It's good enough to discuss policy from a shared understanding of what we're talking about. But it definitely falls short of the claim that the authorities have an authoritative definition, in my opinion.

We all need to step back and ask ourselves "Who ever said trans women are women?" I think it was just a rumor, and we've all be gaslighted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You just admitted that you're playing games with me.

No... he expressed very honestly that we're exploring your positions on this, and we are all intrigued by how they have evolved, and how they will continue to evolve.

That's not playing games. None of us have been dishonest or disingenuous in any way. That some might find your evolving views to be humorous doesn't suggest that there are any games at all being played.

Upthread you referenced that you are autistic - is that correct? If so, that is helpful information for all of us. I will do my best to be explicit and straight-forward as much as possible. If anything I post is unclear, please feel free to ask me to expand or explain what I meant.

There's a fair bit of autism in my family. I'm far from an expert, but I do understand the preference for clear, unambiguous wording, with little nuance or insinuation. If there's a style that works well for you, let me know.

 

[theprestige]

My goodness this one is just enraging.

By the rubric of the TRA movement, wouldn't "gay and trans" make him straight?

This reminds me of the long homosexual march through the humanities: For a long time it seemed fashionable to reinterpret every single character from history and fiction as a gay character, according to a very modern idea of gayness. Brotherhood and bromance have never existed, only gay love. Every great leader and visionary was gay. Every compelling protagonist was gay. Luke Skywalker? Gay. Achilles? Super gay. Abraham Lincoln? Probably gay. Ulysses Grant? We can safely assume that his drinking problem was caused by his repressed homosexuality. Conan the Barbarian? Obviously gay.

So now it's the transsexuals' turn. Everybody from history and fiction who was previously reinterpreted as gay, will now be further reinterpreted as trans. Will and Grace? Both trans. Lando Calrissian? Pansexual and transsexual. Abraham Lincoln? Obviously trans. Lady Godiva? Actually a dude. Philip Seymour Hoffman? Trans. Truman Capote? Trans. RuPaul? He'll be trans in his obit for sure.

Alan Turing is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Emily's Cat]

When the New York Times reports on black trans women, it's a fair bet that they aren't using the definition you suggest here. When the ACLU argues that "[e]xcluding women who are trans hurts all women" they obviously aren't using the definition you suggest here.

TBF, I think black women haven't shared as much in the efforts of feminism that they helped spearhead, nor in the gay/lesbian rights movements which they helped spearhead, nor in the black civil rights movements that they were integrally involved with.

Black women in the US get screwed over from every corner.

 

[theprestige]

We all need to step back and ask ourselves "Who ever said trans women are women?" I think it was just a rumor, and we've all be gaslighted.

You really should read the thread.

 

[Thermal]

You really should read the thread.

Well aren't we quite the sadist.

 

[theprestige]

Well aren't we quite the sadist.

You can't do any cooking if you won't go in the kitchen.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Does that mean everyone can get whatever cosmetic surgery they want on-demand and free? (I assume that strippers pay for their own implants in Scotland.)

From what I understood of it... no. It's only transgender people who get to direct their own medical care, at someone else's expense, without needing a doctor's sign off.

 

[Thermal]

You can't do any cooking if you won't go in the kitchen meth lab.

FTFY

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's a list of demands. These demands have, unsurprisingly, not been granted. Nevertheless this is an organisation that has the ear of government on the subject of trans rights. Women's groups can't even get a meeting.

At one point the FM had an informal meeting with a single woman who happened to say she was a "member" of For Women Scotland (I don't think there's a formal membership list), although she wasn't anyone connected to the group that runs the outfit and she hadn't been a signatory to any of the letters sent asking for a meeting. The likelihood is that she had been to a FWS meeting, put her name on a mailing list, maybe bought a badge or made a donation. As I have myself. After that the FM announced that she had met with For Women Scotland and anybody who said she hadn't was lying.

In contrast she goes out of her way to have formal meetings with trans groups practically every week and practically can't wipe her arse without consulting them.

Didn't the TRA faction within SNP recently try to push for the party to disallow any discussion of women's rights at all? All under the guise of being "inclusive"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

It appears that radical centrists do exist after all. The New America Foundation. They have an advert about supporting trans rights in schools. I can link it if you want; I don't know what the policy is here about linking adverts.

Theprestige and Cullennz, thanks for helping me discover them.

You can link to anything that isn't straight up porn or illegal, IIRC. If there's a lot of gore, swearing, or potential nudity, it's expected that you call it out as NSFW.

 

[caveman1917]

By the rubric of the TRA movement, wouldn't "gay and trans" make him straight?

This reminds me of the long homosexual march through the humanities: For a long time it seemed fashionable to reinterpret every single character from history and fiction as a gay character, according to a very modern idea of gayness. Brotherhood and bromance have never existed, only gay love. Every great leader and visionary was gay. Every compelling protagonist was gay. Luke Skywalker? Gay. Achilles? Super gay. Abraham Lincoln? Probably gay. Ulysses Grant? We can safely assume that his drinking problem was caused by his repressed homosexuality. Conan the Barbarian? Obviously gay.

So now it's the transsexuals' turn. Everybody from history and fiction who was previously reinterpreted as gay, will now be further reinterpreted as trans. Will and Grace? Both trans. Lando Calrissian? Pansexual and transsexual. Abraham Lincoln? Obviously trans. Lady Godiva? Actually a dude. Philip Seymour Hoffman? Trans. Truman Capote? Trans. RuPaul? He'll be trans in his obit for sure.

Alan Turing is just the tip of the iceberg.

Not sure if you're aware, but the "enraging" part about it is that Turing was forced to take estrogen as a form of chemical castration by the court which found him guilty under anti-sodomy laws. He hated it so much, especially the fact that he grew breasts, that he committed suicide not long after.

 

[Collin237]

I submit for consideration the hypothesis that the majority of highly engaged activists for transgender rights do not have gender dysphoria (in your terms, "tucute"). They do not want a diagnosis to be a requirement, because they will not be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

I further submit the hypothesis that the majority of highly engaged transgender activists are autogynephilic males, engaging in a sexual paraphilia.

I additionally submit for consideration that the activism of AGP males endangers the rights of both women and non-AGP gender dysphoric people.

I submit for consideration that that view may be far more common than you think. We've all been arguing from the premise that the debate is being driven by ideology -- only disagreeing on which side it's on. But from what I've been reading on blogs recently, it looks like something far more concrete. Some lobby, some actual bricks-and-mortar lobby, is controlling the dialogue.

 

[Elaedith]

By the rubric of the TRA movement, wouldn't "gay and trans" make him straight?

This reminds me of the long homosexual march through the humanities: For a long time it seemed fashionable to reinterpret every single character from history and fiction as a gay character, according to a very modern idea of gayness. Brotherhood and bromance have never existed, only gay love. Every great leader and visionary was gay. Every compelling protagonist was gay. Luke Skywalker? Gay. Achilles? Super gay. Abraham Lincoln? Probably gay. Ulysses Grant? We can safely assume that his drinking problem was caused by his repressed homosexuality. Conan the Barbarian? Obviously gay.

So now it's the transsexuals' turn. Everybody from history and fiction who was previously reinterpreted as gay, will now be further reinterpreted as trans. Will and Grace? Both trans. Lando Calrissian? Pansexual and transsexual. Abraham Lincoln? Obviously trans. Lady Godiva? Actually a dude. Philip Seymour Hoffman? Trans. Truman Capote? Trans. RuPaul? He'll be trans in his obit for sure.

Alan Turing is just the tip of the iceberg.

And women who adopted a male persona to escape restrictions and prejudice were really men. One of the reasons that Prof Selina Todd needed bodyguards when giving lectures on campus.

Prof Todd said that transgender activists started making complaints about her on the basis that her teaching of feminist history was “transphobic”.

“My research suggests that women who posed as men in the past were often lesbians seeking to protect themselves, or because they want to do jobs that were only available to men,” she said.

“The first complaint that was made against me was to say that I was transphobic because it would be impossible for a transgender student to be taught by me.”

Also I read somewhere that famous female authors who used a male penname to escape the prejudice of the day actually did this because they were men, and it's denying the existence of trans people to say otherwise.