[ED] Discussion: Trans Women Are not Women (Part 6)

[Sherkeu]

Apparently it isn't "more" than that, in your view of things. It's other than that. The ova and uteri aren't really significant, as best as I can tell from your statements. It's the internal concept that matters. Right?

You know, I think I am starting to see why arguing about this won't get anywhere.

Knowing you are a woman, and then also recognizing you are male is surely, for some transpersons, so disparate in thought that there is no way for them to co-exist. The identity is the important thing because that is how that person thinks of themselves. For Boudicca this is 100% a female identity. Us arguing about the body parts won't make any sense because we aren't really listening to the essential nature of the person.

What we do most of our day when we meet people is automatic gendering. We really don't need to consciously think about it. Humans are built to make these quick judgments because these signals help our survival.
We take cues from everything around us to make snap judgments. Again, most of them just go in and out of our heads without a second thought....until, something seems a bit 'off' in the pattern. Then we notice.

Boudicca notices it in other trans women too as she knows people who do not 'pass' well when looking at them. This means she also sees what we see- the male traits. However, she might understand them as 'women' because her brain is not troubled by the anomaly in the pattern.

She also must see them in herself or she would not make efforts to correct the 'error' of those birth sex traits.

Seems like there is probably some common ground here we could find.

 

[Manger Douse]

And also - just for information dontcha know (since anything more than this would be an improper appeal to authority ) - it's probably worth noting that within the understanding of DSM5, the WHO, the UN and many major World governments, trans women are women. The only issue to sort out is quite how that rather intangible and metaphysical concept is applied in practice.

Yet you can't post a single link from theses scores of medical experts saying so and were reduced to appealing to the authority of the National Office of Statistics to make your claims look legitimate

 

[Meadmaker]

You know, I think I am starting to see why arguing about this won't get anywhere.

Knowing you are a woman, and then also recognizing you are male is surely, for some transpersons, so disparate in thought that there is no way for them to co-exist. The identity is the important thing because that is how that person thinks of themselves. For Boudicca this is 100% a female identity. Us arguing about the body parts won't make any sense because we aren't really listening to the essential nature of the person.

I suppose that's true. The arguments really are all about definitions, when all is said and done. We understand pretty much the nature of transpeople, and so do they. It's how to describe those natures that is problematic. Whether we call a transgender person a "man" or a "woman", or a "male" or a "female" does not change that nature.

However, I'm still not sure there's a lot of common ground. I think of myself a certain way. If that is what I call my identify, and you see me differently, what does that mean? Does it mean that you are wrong? The question of "rights" as applied to trans people and which sets of access or other societal privileges should be granted is a question of whether those access priviliges should be based on the way you see yourself, or the way other people see you.

I'm inclined to say that latter, especially in cases where other people's concepts of you are objectively measurable.

 

[Sherkeu]

I suppose that's true. The arguments really are all about definitions, when all is said and done. We understand pretty much the nature of transpeople, and so do they. It's how to describe those natures that is problematic. Whether we call a transgender person a "man" or a "woman", or a "male" or a "female" does not change that nature.

However, I'm still not sure there's a lot of common ground. I think of myself a certain way. If that is what I call my identify, and you see me differently, what does that mean? Does it mean that you are wrong? The question of "rights" as applied to trans people and which sets of access or other societal privileges should be granted is a question of whether those access priviliges should be based on the way you see yourself, or the way other people see you.

I'm inclined to say that latter, especially in cases where other people's concepts of you are objectively measurable.

There's always some common ground. I think posters here can talk rights, but Boudicca chimed in when we had discussed it all to death already. Round and round and round. This thread is like a Hot Wheels car that hits the loop and falls off the track over and over. So I thought maybe I'd back up and see where maybe some alignment is off at the start. (and now I want a hot wheels track...double loop!)

I think there is a tendency to immediately discount or outright deny things that might be weaponized, even if they are factually true. Separating out those arguments so they aren't so personal to the conversation might lead to some agreement on something more fundamental. Then we'll see where the whole thing falls apart.
I think my stance on certain things especially involving kids won't be changing but there could be some shared values that we never get to because of all the noise.

Of course it will only be a sliver of insight given that even inside any rights group there are internal debates, and even the same type of vitriol you'd only expect from an enemy of your cause. But we are skeptics and every sliver is a piece of the puzzle, right?

IDK. We only have one trans person here and none of us is in some powerful position to resolve or legislate, so I can listen for a bit.

 

[Aber]

which sets of access or other societal privileges should be granted is a question of whether those access priviliges should be based on the way you see yourself, or the way other people see you.

I'm inclined to say that latter, especially in cases where other people's concepts of you are objectively measurable.

Agreed

We make minor accommodations based on how people see themselves (insert your own religious example here), but we generally do not allow those to override the rights of others.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Dude. You have XY genes and SRY expression. This is a hard binary divide.. My opinion isn't your problem. The opinion of your own biology is your problem.

Why is this binary divide one worth having structuring our society around?

Some people are objectively left handed, some right handed. It used to be common to "correct" left handed people.

Some people are objectively darker skin than others. It's measurable. We can test the blood of black people and determine their genetic heritage to Africa.

The question isn't whether something is an observable fact, the question is what is the societal consequence of an observable fact.

Nobody serious is contesting that there exists a difference between XX and XY chromosomes. What's being contested is that this difference is something so significant and meaningful, it's worth making sweeping societal distinctions between these populations, and whether this binary distinction is so profound it's worth overlooking the many other factors at play when it comes to defining sex and gender.

Trans people, generally speaking, don't deny the science of chromosomes.* Trans people and their allies simply state that there's way more to gender and sex than just chromosomes, and insisting there isn't is deliberately cruel and doesn't serve society well.

*Spare me the nutpicking that this comment will bring. I dont care what some fringe weirdo on Tumblr or Twitter says, they don't speak for all trans people.

 

[Collin237]

Everyone (including me at some times) has been arguing only about what rights trans people deserve. But there's one question nobody seems to be asking:

How do we know that these so-called trans rights are rights at all?

There are very powerful anti-trans organizations that have been pushing this list of "rights" onto the world, including onto trans people. There is no other marginalized group that has had to deal with such an indignity, of not being allowed to even compile their own list of what their rights are.

And everyone on this thread has gone to great lengths to avoid even discussing the possibility that some of the so-called trans lobbies are anti-trans.

 

[d4m10n]

Apropos of almost nothing, I happened across this punk tune about sex and identity the other day.

[Content warning: Vulgarity and sexual themes]


I expect there will be some blowback; though the assertions aren't all that edgy, it does kick off with a "gender pronoun bar fight."

How do we know that these so-called trans rights are rights at all?

Rights don't exist to be discovered like the law of universal gravitation, they emerge from social and legal consensus, like the laws against segregation by race.

 

[Collin237]

You know, I think I am starting to see why arguing about this won't get anywhere.

Knowing you are a woman, and then also recognizing you are male is surely, for some transpersons, so disparate in thought that there is no way for them to co-exist. The identity is the important thing because that is how that person thinks of themselves. For Boudicca this is 100% a female identity. Us arguing about the body parts won't make any sense because we aren't really listening to the essential nature of the person.

What we do most of our day when we meet people is automatic gendering. We really don't need to consciously think about it. Humans are built to make these quick judgments because these signals help our survival.
We take cues from everything around us to make snap judgments. Again, most of them just go in and out of our heads without a second thought....until, something seems a bit 'off' in the pattern. Then we notice.

Boudicca notices it in other trans women too as she knows people who do not 'pass' well when looking at them. This means she also sees what we see- the male traits. However, she might understand them as 'women' because her brain is not troubled by the anomaly in the pattern.

She also must see them in herself or she would not make efforts to correct the 'error' of those birth sex traits.

Seems like there is probably some common ground here we could find.

Another common ground is that feminists have already dealt with the question of what is a right.

If there are locker rooms where students are expected to see each other naked, and one of the students is a trans girl, what is her right?

The claim that there is a right to use the girls' locker room is based on the unfounded -- and bizarre -- assumption that a locker room has an intrinsic positive value.

Isn't it her right to opt out of the locker room system and simply not have to change clothes in school? Why would anyone who truly supports trans rights deny her this right?

Also, everyone debating whether trans women should compete as men or as women in sports is ignoring the reason it's an issue at all. The reason is that women are expected to wear sexy outfits in sports events, and including trans women on the women's teams is a way to discourage TV-watching men from trying to get a glimpse of women's genitals as highlighted by the uniforms the women are required to wear.

If sports uniforms covered as much skin as bulkily as possible for both women's and men's teams, putting trans women on the men's team wouldn't be a problem.

 

[Collin237]

Rights don't exist to be discovered like the law of universal gravitation, they emerge from social and legal consensus, like the laws against segregation by race.

They emerge from social and legal contracts between the oppressed group and the rest of society. Transgender people have never been allowed to negotiate such a contract.

 

[d4m10n]

...everyone debating whether trans women should compete as men or as women in sports is ignoring the reason it's an issue at all. The reason is that women are expected to wear sexy outfits in sports events, and including trans women on the women's teams is a way to discourage TV-watching men from trying to get a glimpse of women's genitals as highlighted by the uniforms the women are required to wear.

We are definitely not watching the same women's sports events.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GQx2dpsM1MXWGeko6

 

[Collin237]

We are definitely not watching the same women's sports events.

https://images.app.goo.gl/GQx2dpsM1MXWGeko6

Whether their outfits are glamorous in your or my fashion tradition is irrelevant. It's still exploitative to require women to wear short-shorts.

 

[d4m10n]

Honestly, I cannot tell if you're trolling right now.

Their outfits look little different than those worn by the men's team.

 

[Collin237]

Honestly, I cannot tell if you're trolling right now.

Their outfits look little different than those worn by the men's team.

That's exploitative also.

 

[theprestige]

Honestly, I cannot tell if you're trolling right now.

Their outfits look little different than those worn by the men's team.

Men's sport is a global conspiracy to get women into scanty clothing. Really the whole feminist movement of the nineteenth century to allow women to play sports at all was a scam perpetrated by the patriarchy to trick women into wearing rugby shorts.

Also it should be noted that women - especially women athletes - are big dumb drones with no agency or self-awareness. If the patriarchy wants them to wear shorts, they have no real choice but to go along with it. Would never occur to them to decide for themselves what to wear.

 

[Sherkeu]

Whether their outfits are glamorous in your or my fashion tradition is irrelevant. It's still exploitative to require women to wear short-shorts.

Women choose to wear comfortable athletic attire for the most unrestricted movement.
They can add some more clothing if they wanted- and they usually will if it's cold.
Some cases they cannot, like synchronized swimming, for obvious reasons.
Then again, the men in water sports are wearing speedos, so...

I feel like I have peeked into the door of some creepy part of your brain.
I hereby, by the authority of no one at all, ban you from all private female spaces.

 

[Sherkeu]

Men's sport is a global conspiracy to get women into scanty clothing. Really the whole feminist movement of the nineteenth century to allow women to play sports at all was a scam perpetrated by the patriarchy to trick women into wearing rugby shorts.

Also it should be noted that women - especially women athletes - are big dumb drones with no agency or self-awareness. If the patriarchy wants them to wear shorts, they have no real choice but to go along with it. Would never occur to them to decide for themselves what to wear.

It all started with the controversy of men forcing women to show their ankles. Quite titillating to the young lads!

 

[Ziggurat]

Whether their outfits are glamorous in your or my fashion tradition is irrelevant. It's still exploitative to require women to wear short-shorts.

You could describe anyone paying someone else to do something the first person wants as exploitative, but that’s really stretching the definition. They are professionals. They are performing a job they agreed to, and want to do.

 

[theprestige]

It all started with the controversy of men forcing women to show their ankles. Quite titillating to the young lads! : jaw-dropp

The real power move was giving them the vote, and letting them to vote for "reforms" themselves.

 

[Aber]

Nobody serious is contesting that there exists a difference between XX and XY chromosomes. What's being contested is that this difference is something so significant and meaningful, it's worth making sweeping societal distinctions between these populations, and whether this binary distinction is so profound it's worth overlooking the many other factors at play when it comes to defining sex and gender.

This difference is observable, and consistent across many different elements.

The proposed alternative is to segregate by an ill-defined internal feeling.