• 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.
The law here in CA seems to do a good job not really defining anything except in the most general catch-all way. These things are getting reslly wordy.

And still, I can see where a few more paragraphs would be needed to be more inclusive.


Civil code sec 51
(5) “Sex” includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.
Click to expand...


The last bill (CA-219) added Gender Identity:

(b) “Gender identity” means a person’s identity based on the individual’s stated gender identity, without regard to whether the self-identified gender accords with the individual’s physical appearance, surgical history, genitalia, legal sex, sex assigned at birth, or name and sex, as it appears in medical records, and without regard to any contrary statement by any other person, including a family member, conservator, or legal representative. An individual who lacks the present ability to communicate his or her gender identity shall retain the gender identity most recently expressed by that individual.
Click to expand...

Then they get to transgender and 'transition'

h) “Transgender” means a person whose gender identity differs from the person’s assigned or presumed sex at birth.

(i) “Transition” means to undergo a process by which a person changes physical sex characteristics or gender expression to match the person’s inner sense of being male or female. This process may include, among other things, a name change, a change in preferred pronouns, and a change in social gender expression, as indicated by hairstyle, clothing, and restroom use. Transition may or may not include hormone use and surgery.
Click to expand...


I find it interesting that they avoided saying 'Transgender' when defining the 'Transition'. They don't match them up the way the other definitions had done when following down a semi-logical line.
Likely because they cannot make any transition a part of being recognized as Transgender.

Therefore a Transwoman in CA is a person with self-determined Sex, Gender, and Gender Identity than the one they had when assigned or assumed at birth relating to a sex role in pregnancy and childbirth.

Hope that clear it all up!
 
Last edited:
Sherkeu said:
The law here in CA seems to do a good job not really defining anything except in the most general catch-all way.


Civil code sec 51



The last bill (CA-219) added Gender Identity:



Then they get to transgender and 'transition'




I find it interesting that they avoided saying 'Transgender' when defining the 'Transition'. They don't match them up the way the other definitions had done when following down a semi-logical line.
Likely because they cannot make any transition a part of being recognized as Transgender.

Therefore a Transwoman in CA is a person with self-determined Gender and Sex, Gender, and Gender Identity than the one she had when assigned or assumed at birth relating to a sex role in pregnancy and childbirth.

Hope that clear it all up!
Click to expand...

What do you expect from a country whose legal code says that corporations are people? :)
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's the problem with "identity" being sacrosanct.

It defines disagreement as a personal attack.
Click to expand...

It's a massive blind spot in the MA, too. We're prohibited from personalizing the debate, from making personal attacks, and from addressing the arguer instead of their argument.

But the core of Boudicca's argument is an ideology of personal identity. She cannot make her argument without personalizing the debate. The argument cannot be attacked without attacking the arguer.

Rolfe's already been sanctioned under the MA, for addressing Boudicca's argument on its own terms. Either they should both be sanctioned, or neither should be sanctioned.
 
deadrose said:
You'll have to settle for me thinking that you're a reasonable, rational conservative in most circumstances. I don't classify you with the frothing rage bunch : )
Click to expand...

Thank you! I appreciate it.

But my point was that I have been a target of frothing rage, far worse than anything I saw happen to luchog.

To be honest, I'd rather you contributed to this thread with your view on some or all of the following:

The definitions of "man" and "woman" that you'd like to see applied in public policy about trans rights.

The medical necessity for certain trans accommodations.

The sports conundrum.

The conundrum of transsexuals in demography and gender-based quotas[/i] affirmative action.

Self-ID as sufficient qualification for trans accommodation.

Any of the concerns about male access to female spaces that have been raised by Emily's Cat.
 
deadrose said:
Not since December 2019. It was their opinion that they were treated foully and that is their stated reason for no longer posting on the forum. I don't presume to speak for them in any but those general terms.
Click to expand...

Luchog's feeling isn't necessarily truth. It may be their stated reason... but on the other hand one could state that their reason for leaving is that they were treated foully by people for being left-handed. That doesn't necessarily make it true.

I also recall Luchog expressing deep and seemingly sincere worry immediately after Trump was elected... concerned that gangs of roving anti-gay people might attack and kill them in the middle of Capitol Hill, in Seattle.

Perceptions are subjective.

deadrose said:
I simply wanted to point out that Boudicca is not the only transgender person involved here.
Click to expand...
I have previously mentioned Luchog as an early participant. Either way, Boudicca is the only transgender person who has participated in over a year so...

Still looking for examples of the vile hatred you've referenced.
 
Last edited:
deadrose said:
Not since December 2019. It was their opinion that they were treated foully and that is their stated reason for no longer posting on the forum. I don't presume to speak for them in any but those general terms. I simply wanted to point out that Boudicca is not the only transgender person involved here.
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell, luchog was treated exactly the same as anyone else who comes here with an opinion that they can't or won't support when pressed. Politics, religion, conspiracies... luchog got a mild roasting in the time-honored skeptical tradition. The Full ISF, as it were.

It's kind of disingenuous for them to tolerate this forum's behavior for years, and then flounce when they become a legitimate subject of that behavior.

But like I said, I'm less interested in who hates who and how much, and more interested in what you can contribute to some of the central questions we're trying to discuss.
 
theprestige said:
As far as I can tell, luchog was treated exactly the same as anyone else who comes here with an opinion that they can't or won't support when pressed. Politics, religion, conspiracies... luchog got a mild roasting in the time-honored skeptical tradition. The Full ISF, as it were.

It's kind of disingenuous for them to tolerate this forum's behavior for years, and then flounce when they become a legitimate subject of that behavior.
But like I said, I'm less interested in who hates who and how much, and more interested in what you can contribute to some of the central questions we're trying to discuss.
Click to expand...

Not just tolerate, but actively contribute to.
 
theprestige said:
It's a massive blind spot in the MA, too. We're prohibited from personalizing the debate, from making personal attacks, and from addressing the arguer instead of their argument.

But the core of Boudicca's argument is an ideology of personal identity. She cannot make her argument without personalizing the debate. The argument cannot be attacked without attacking the arguer.

Rolfe's already been sanctioned under the MA, for addressing Boudicca's argument on its own terms. Either they should both be sanctioned, or neither should be sanctioned.
Click to expand...

Sanctioning Boudicca wouldn't be a big deal if there were at least a nominally sized contingent of trans people on this thread. And I fully agree with Butter that the thread title is to blame.
 
Collin237 said:
What do you expect from a country whose legal code says that corporations are people? : )
Click to expand...

Corporate personhood is a limited, pragmatic, and effective solution for handling the nature of corporations and their role in society.

From that part of our legal code, I'd expect something similarly limited, pragmatic, and effective for trans rights policy. Not "“Gender” means sex" and "“Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth."

I'm especially interested in the idea that I can have a non-stereotypical gender expression.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Do you have anything to say about the content of the article I posted?

How about providing your perspective on what in the article you just linked to is relevant to what I posted?
Click to expand...

They don't refer to it by name in your article, but the opinions you quoted are easily recognizable as Double Consciousness Theory. I don't believe in it. And I also don't trust any organization, such as WoLF, that aligns itself with the Heritage Foundation. I included that article so you wouldn't dismiss that connection as idle speculation.
 
Collin237 said:
Sanctioning Boudicca wouldn't be a big deal if there were at least a nominally sized contingent of trans people on this thread. And I fully agree with Butter that the thread title is to blame.
Click to expand...

It is a very intimidating thread title. It basically tells the world, unless you're prepared to jump into this thread face first with "here's why transwomen are women", and defend your "whys" against an aggressive skeptical examination, don't even bother.
 
Regarding the definitions of man, woman, and gender, I want to put in some real world examples of conclusions that people are making (and avoid mentions of straw men or slippery slopes):

And in a recent issue of the journal Pediatrics, researchers showed that 2.7 percent of Minnesota’s youth identify as trans and gender nonconforming. Similar to trans, gender nonconforming describes those who reject gender expectations that assume only females can do femininity while only males can do masculinity.
Click to expand...

Linky.

In reality though, I could never dress modestly enough to stop the endless street harassment, sexual advances and sexism, no matter what I wore. The world saw me as a woman and treated me as such. While many women around me seemed to feel empowered through their identity as feminist women, I only felt more and more disconnected from the gender I felt was forced on me from birth, and the discrimination and inequality that it brought with it. For me, femininity was inextricably connected to the male gaze, and I couldn’t embrace something so deeply tied to my experience of patriarchy, sexual objectification and sexism.

In the last year, I have openly let go of womanhood. I no longer identify with the gender assigned to me at birth - a common way of understanding trans identity. My gender has become a space where I can actively let go of all the gendered societal and cultural norms that were forced onto me, and build my own gender expression and embodiment. I have settled on the word ‘agender’, meaning without gender or no gender. I use they/them pronouns and identify on the gender spectrum as neither a man nor a woman. Now, the word woman simply describes a relationship to patriarchy, it is a power dynamic, an external construct that has nothing to do with who I am on the inside.

My trans identity has given me so much freedom; to shave off my hair, to fill my wardrobe with men’s clothing, to take joy in being visibly Queer, visibly butch, visibly not a woman. I am not beholden to androgyny or men’s clothing or medicalisation. If I want to wear a dress, I will, and that doesn’t make me any less trans.
Click to expand...

Linky.

Rather, I want to consider more fundamental questions: are gay men cisgender? And, if they’re not, is attempting to silence or dismiss them through weaponized deployments of “cisgender” a smart political strategy? Does it help advance the cause of gender justice for everyone in society?

...

For our purposes, the relevant aspects of the consensus definition of “cisgender” are gender identity, gender presentation, and biological sex. So the question, “Are gay men cisgender?” is another way of asking, “Are gay men’s gender identity and gender presentation what are expected for someone labeled “male” at birth?” All of which entails a third, unexpected, question: “Are gay men male?”

The answers are sometimes, sometimes, and maybe.

...

So, no, gay men are not cisgender.
Click to expand...

Linky.

I find these to be the logical illogical conclusions of this philosophy. It sounds like a progressive regurgitation of traditional regressive ideas.

Given this belief system, it is not surprising that I have noticed in LGBT spaces that the majority of trans people are non-binary, or otherwise not "traditional binary transgender". The "tucutes" won the battle over the "truscum". Gender and sex are spectrums and dysphoria is not needed to be valid.

Given this situation, how do sports, locker rooms, restrooms, etc. handle agender people? Or people who are gender fluid? In this survey, there are more of those in the 18-35 demographic than regular transgender people.

For the LGBT, if gay means same-gender attraction, do you gain and lose attraction based on the day for a genderfluid person? Since you cannot assume a person's gender, how are people attracted to others before they are told the other person's gender? This spawns a seemingly never ending host of micro-identities for micro-identities to handle every new edge case.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Corporate personhood is a limited, pragmatic, and effective solution for handling the nature of corporations and their role in society.

From that part of our legal code, I'd expect something similarly limited, pragmatic, and effective for trans rights policy. Not "“Gender” means sex" and "“Gender expression” means a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth."

I'm especially interested in the idea that I can have a non-stereotypical gender expression.
Click to expand...

I agree. And let me add that proposing a new legal coding would be a much more productive use of this thread then arguing about essential definitions.
 
Honestly, agender and/or gender fluid makes more sense to me than transgenderism, as it simply removes the vague concept of gender altogether.

No gender, no problem. Now we can make policies based on reality, e.g. people with the advantages of a male body shouldn't compete with female-bodied people in sports.

Gender was the problem all along.
 
theprestige said:
Sorry, but technically correct is the worst kind of correct. The truth is that "vagina" is used colloquially without any confusion of meaning. It's not necessary to contest it every time.
Click to expand...


You may use it that way but as a medically trained person you will not catch me letting it slide. My anatomy classes were pretty clear on the subject.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom