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

[LondonJohn]

He didn't ask for your definitions. He asked for your definition.

One. Singular.
And he specified the word for which he wanted a definition. "Woman".

The definition isn't in your link. It wasn't last time, either.

LOL. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

It was almost laughably simple for anyone to infer my* definition of "woman" from that link. For anyone who knows anything about transgender identity and who is debating in good faith, that is. But see my previous post for the required spoonfeeding.


* Not just "my" definition: in fact also the definition of the UK Govt, the WHO, the UN, DSM5zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Manger Douse]

Why the link to the ONS? Why not just say "my definition of woman is anyone who says they are"

 

[Collin237]

Woman:
a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of femininity; gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself, and so the gender category of "woman" which someone identifies with may not match the sex (male or female) they were assigned at birth.

They're going to tell you that's not a definition. How about this:

Woman:
1. a person socially construed as having behaviours and attributes based on labels conflated with the presence of female reproductive organs

2. a person who internally perceives oneself as having behaviours and attributes which, although commonly considered by others to indicate the presence of female reproductive organs, one considers to be irrespective of one's actual organs which may differ

 

[Meadmaker]

Woman:
a social construction relating to behaviours and attributes based on labels of femininity;

Ok. Excellent. So you think the people who should be admitted to the women's locker room are those whose behaviors and attributes are based on labels of femininity.

Hmmmm...attributes. I'll just assume that we aren't talking about physical attributes here, because possession of a penis is an attribute, but it isn't associated with femininity. We'll assume it is behavior and mannerisms that matter.

But, your definition goes on:

gender identity is a personal, internal perception of oneself, and so the gender category of "woman" which someone identifies with may not match the sex (male or female) they were assigned at birth.

If someone "identifies with" the gender category of "woman" are they automatically a woman, then? It seems rather unverifiable, unless we assume that the publicly stated gender identify is always identical to the internal perception. It sounds like an argument for self ID as the means of identifying womanhood.

I'm going to leave that for a bit, because I don't want to get too distracted from my questions to Boudicca, although I would gladly accept answers from anyone, not just Boudicca. For that question, we don't want to get hung up on definitions. I'll remind everyone of the question. We all agree on the definitions of cisman, ciswoman, and transwoman, regardless of our definition of men and women.

So, the question was why was it that we would support a ciswoman in her desire to avoid sharing a locker room with cismen, but we should not support her in her desire to avoid sharing a locker room with transwomen?

Ideally, the answer wouldn't depend on the definition of "woman" at all, but if an answer can't be stated without using that word, I suppose your definition above can be used. Respond if you care to.

 

[LondonJohn]

Why the link to the ONS? Why not just say "my definition of woman is anyone who says they are"

Probably because that's not what my definition (or that of the ONS etc etc) actually is? Just a guess.

 

[LondonJohn]

Ok. Excellent. So you think the people who should be admitted to the women's locker room are those whose behaviors and attributes are based on labels of femininity.

Hmmmm...attributes. I'll just assume that we aren't talking about physical attributes here, because possession of a penis is an attribute, but it isn't associated with femininity. We'll assume it is behavior and mannerisms that matter.

But, your definition goes on:



If someone "identifies with" the gender category of "woman" are they automatically a woman, then? It seems rather unverifiable, unless we assume that the publicly stated gender identify is always identical to the internal perception. It sounds like an argument for self ID as the means of identifying womanhood.

I'm going to leave that for a bit, because I don't want to get too distracted from my questions to Boudicca, although I would gladly accept answers from anyone, not just Boudicca. For that question, we don't want to get hung up on definitions. I'll remind everyone of the question. We all agree on the definitions of cisman, ciswoman, and transwoman, regardless of our definition of men and women.

So, the question was why was it that we would support a ciswoman in her desire to avoid sharing a locker room with cismen, but we should not support her in her desire to avoid sharing a locker room with transwomen?

Ideally, the answer wouldn't depend on the definition of "woman" at all, but if an answer can't be stated without using that word, I suppose your definition above can be used. Respond if you care to.

You're still labouring under a set of fundamental misunderstandings about what gender dysphoria and transidentity actually are (and what they are not).

But in passing, maybe you might ask yourself how and why these definitions have been adopted by all of the relevant global institutions and many World governments. After all, if what you say above is accurate and well-informed, all of those bodies (including those comprising the world's experts on the subject) a) don't really know what they're talking about and b) haven't even managed to form definitions which mean anything (and which therefore can't be used in terms of clinical diagnosis or the framing of legislation).

Or maybe.... just maybe.... you're wrong.

 

[Collin237]

We all agree on the definitions of cisman, ciswoman, and transwoman, regardless of our definition of men and women.

That's three out of four. Do we also all agree on the definition of transman?

If so, then there are six categories that can be formed by joining two of those with "or". It's not logically necessary to pick two of them to equate with "man" and "woman".

 

[Thermal]

If this thread makes you so angry, feel free to find another one.

(Missed this earlier)

It doesn't make me angry. Confused, shocked, confounded, perplexed...a lot of things, but not angry. Seems a lot of the discussion hinges on these alternative definitions/descriptions of 'woman'. A recent one posted basically interchanges 'a woman' with 'feminine'. I mean, is random definition conflation helpful?

 

[LondonJohn]

At least we might now be able to move forward from

1) Constant badgering me for "my" definition*

to

2) Telling me in so many ways why "my" definition** is meaningless and therefore worthless.




* Which is exactly the same as the definition drawn up and used by (among others) the UK Govt, the UN, the WHO, the world's clinical experts, and all serious academics.

** Which is exactly the same as the definition drawn up and used by (among others) the UK Govt, the UN, the WHO, the world's clinical experts, and all serious academics.

 

[Manger Douse]

Probably because that's not what my definition (or that of the ONS etc etc) actually is? Just a guess.

Cool, so why did you use a link from the ONS and not from say, the DSM or any of the world's clinical experts for your definition?

 

[LondonJohn]

(Missed this earlier)

It doesn't make me angry. Confused, shocked, confounded, perplexed...a lot of things, but not angry. Seems a lot of the discussion hinges on these alternative definitions/descriptions of 'woman'. A recent one posted basically interchanges 'a woman' with 'feminine'. I mean, is random definition conflation helpful?

It's vitally important to be able to have a separation between 1) words used to denote biological sex, from 2) words used to denote gender. when transgender identity is under discussion. For reasons which I'd hope would be obvious.

Yes, it's long been culturally (and legally) embedded that sex and gender are interchangeable, since the view has long been that gender is inextricably linked to sex. Which is precisely why society instinctively uses "man" and "male" interchangeable, and likewise for "woman" and "female".

But that model cannot (obviously, I'd hope) be used when describing transgender identity. And this is exactly why, in the context of transidentity, it's necessary to separate sex (fixed, biological) from gender (not fixed, internal). In a transidentity universe, a person can be a female and a man, or a male and a woman, or a male/female and neither a man nor a woman.

 

[LondonJohn]

Cool, so why did you use a link from the ONS and not from say, the DSM or any of the world's clinical experts for your definition?

Why on earth would that matter?

If I asked you to tell me the approx distance between the Earth and the Sun, I'd be satisfied if you used any authoritative source to supply and support your answer. I wouldn't care whether you'd, say, used the International Astronomical Union as a source - why the heck would it matter, so long as the source you did use was sufficiently credible and authoritative in itself.

Totally bizarre.

 

[Manger Douse]

Why on earth would that matter?

If I asked you to tell me the approx distance between the Earth and the Sun, I'd be satisfied if you used any authoritative source to supply and support your answer. I wouldn't care whether you'd, say, used the International Astronomical Union as a source - why the heck would it matter, so long as the source you did use was sufficiently credible and authoritative in itself.

Totally bizarre.

Because the International Astronomical Union would have people investigating how far the distance is, I very much doubt the Office of National Statistics has a team working on who women are - that would be a job for the worlds clinical experts no, so why don't you post a link from them?

 

[Olmstead]

It's vitally important to be able to have a separation between 1) words used to denote biological sex, from 2) words used to denote gender. when transgender identity is under discussion. For reasons which I'd hope would be obvious.

Yes, it's long been culturally (and legally) embedded that sex and gender are interchangeable, since the view has long been that gender is inextricably linked to sex. Which is precisely why society instinctively uses "man" and "male" interchangeable, and likewise for "woman" and "female".

But that model cannot (obviously, I'd hope) be used when describing transgender identity. And this is exactly why, in the context of transidentity, it's necessary to separate sex (fixed, biological) from gender (not fixed, internal). In a transidentity universe, a person can be a female and a man, or a male and a woman, or a male/female and neither a man nor a woman.

Gender just describes how members of a certain sex behave.

 

[Collin237]

In a transidentity universe, a person can be a female and a man, or a male and a woman, or a male/female and neither a man nor a woman.

Culture, not universe.

 

[Aber]

And, once those reasonable safeguards are in place, there should be a sustained period of monitoring and feedback loops. Nobody yet knows whether there truly would be many instances of criminal acts by cis- or transmen in women-only spaces. But if the evidence does show these sorts of crimes starting to occur, then it would be incumbent upon legislators to either increase/improve safeguarding measures for ciswomen, or (if that doesn't work) consider altering or reversing certain laws.

And yet again, you demonstrate that you have not been listening to the women posting on this thread.

It is not just criminal acts that they are concerned about; it's the male gaze, and the feeling of uncertainty about what were formerly seen as safe spaces.

 

[Collin237]

And yet again, you demonstrate that you have not been listening to the women posting on this thread.

It is not just criminal acts that they are concerned about; it's the male gaze, and the feeling of uncertainty about what were formerly seen as safe spaces.

Fear itself is not a reason to separate people.

 

[Rolfe]

Deleted because it seems that telling the truth about the probable reasons why creepy men want to have the "right" to enter spaces where women are undressing, and expose themselves, seems to be against the rules here now.

 

[Rolfe]

Sorry, accidental duplicate.

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean that woman and trans women, collectively, at the worldwide grass roots level, need to reach a peaceful consensus, and capture the world with it.

Remember that the most privileged identity of all is the non-identifier.

Boudicca and Emily will never reach a consensus. So what do we do?