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

[Emily's Cat]

It's kind of offensive for you to claim solidarity with a group of people who have literally nothing in common with you.

Boudicca's not even claiming solidarity. Boudicca is claiming that the experiences of females simply don't count and aren't important.

 

[d4m10n]

Here in the US, Biden made his feelings on the matter and his support of us perfectly clear, and there seems to be no dissention about that among Democrats.

I imagine there will be some dissent from the second-wave feminist types once they discover that Title IX must henceforth be construed so as to disallow sex-based categorization for the sake of creating educational and sporting opportunities specifically for individuals observed to be female at birth. I suppose we shall see how this all pans out, though; the previous iteration of the "Dear Colleague" letter was relatively tame IIRC.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Boudicca is trying to do a fringe reset on ten thousand years of human civilization. I doubt it will take.

Fringe reset on hundreds of thousands of years of sexual reproduction using two differently sized gametes...

 

[Meadmaker]

Not necessarily. Sex is more than chromosomes and reproductive organs.

I know this is a few days old, but I just saw EC's reply, and it reminded me of something.

Is there a word for that thing which is not more than chromosomes and reproductive organs? I mean, Joe Morgue asked a question that referred to penis havers and vagina havers. Other posts have referred to sperm producers and egg producers. Are there words to describe those?

Because, if the truth be told, I think that's a pretty important aspect of human existence. There ought to be a word for it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Can get pregnant, support a growing fetus for 9 months of development, squeeze a watermelon out of our vaginal canal, then feed the sex fruit out of our boobs for another year.

Nope, not at all significant or meaningful.

I mean, it's not like we've had thousands of years of oppression and discrimination as a result of such a meaningless, insignificant, really trivial difference, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You're going to need to provide some supporting evidence for your conspiracy theory.

 

[Paul2]

No, not really.

They can't be as up front about it as conservatives, so they couch it in things like "women's rights" or "concern for children". It's a more underhanded form of justification for bigotry.

Can you say why disagreement could not be the result of some mere disagreement without bigotry, as misguided as it might be? Even granting that some/much/most disagreement is bigoted doesn’t say that it has to be. I’m not asking a statistical question, but a logical one : is it a necessary implication of a disagreement about trans rights that it has to be the result of bigotry?

 

[Boudicca90]

Evidence?

Personal observation.

 

[Boudicca90]

You grossly misspelled "acknowledgement of basic biology" above. HTH, HAND.

That is a good point, biological determinism and gender essentialism are also common excuses.

 

[Boudicca90]

Can get pregnant, support a growing fetus for 9 months of development, squeeze a watermelon out of our vaginal canal, then feed the sex fruit out of our boobs for another year.



Nope, not at all significant or meaningful.



I mean, it's not like we've had thousands of years of oppression and discrimination as a result of such a meaningless, insignificant, really trivial difference, right?

And that is one way cisgender and transgender women differ (at least for now, who knows how far medical science will progress), but it is not exclusive to women either, since transgender men can become pregnant as well.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm really just advocating for better dialogue. there are reasons for those beliefs we find hard to understand. What are they?

As for empathy for the flat-earther: Imagine you are a reporter for a newspaper or media company. They send you to do a story on a celebrity who has come out as a flat earther.
How do you approach that interview? Surely you ask some polite questions, then perhaps a bit more probing questions. You listen and take note of what you hear. You confirm that what you are interpreting is what they meant, etc... You dont go in guns blazing or the whole thing is over before it starts! And it doesnt matter if their own guns are blazing. You can decide the tone of your responses and make it happen.

FWIW, I don't think most of us came in guns blazing. I certainly didn't. But at some point of having my civil and reasonable discussions dismissed as "paranoid" and "delusional" and "hysterical", I get tired of being expected to just bear the abuse in good humor.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Dealing with Collin's free association

Cain + Bob = Collin

 

[JoeMorgue]

And that is one way cisgender and transgender women differ (at least for now, who knows how far medical science will progress), but it is not exclusive to women either, since transgender men can become pregnant as well.

Yeah if you just use words at random you can make anything technically correct on a linguistic level.

A dog has 5 legs if I call a tail a leg. That's technically true and ABSOLUTELY ACROSS THE BOARD POINTLESS.

That's why I begged this thread a few pages back to try and make whatever point everyone is making without using specific words.

You are across the board incapable of making a point without defining the words in your point to go "I'm correct because I define it so."

2+2 can equal anything you want if you define 2 as a variable.

I ask you again. Give me a basic breakdown of what you are arguing without using the terms man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, or trans. If you have an actual point that is separate from the language, you should be able to do that. I bet you either can't or won't.

I can do it with my position. I can even describe the opinions of people I disagree with (in some cases very strongly) in that way. I can't do it with you because your entire point is "I'm right because I define things in a way that makes me right and then just repeat the definition back when asked to support it."

 

[Joe Random]

Cain + Bob = Collin

You can't prove the leftist anti-religion NGO drivers don't have an opinion about that.

 

[d4m10n]

Give me a basic breakdown of what you are arguing without using the terms man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, or trans.

This is trickier than it sounds. "Sports organizations ought to be legally permitted to set aside competitive brackets and/or leagues for individuals who've never experienced the virilizing effects of endogenous testosterone due to the presence of an SRY gene in combination with functional androgen receptors" is something of a mouthful, and it doesn't quite capture everything I was hoping to say.

 

[Emily's Cat]

<snip>


And then..... stop asking this stupid question (for which the answer was obvious long ago to anyone who knows anything about the subject and who also wishes to debate/discuss in good faith)

Let's try this again, perhaps more explicitly.

"Gender" is a social construct based on behavioral expectations, presentation, etc.

We all agree with that, all of your sources essentially say that.

Now, with that agreement noted... What characterizes the gender or "woman"?

When we're talking about sex, we can define the general concept of sex as being based on the type of gamete that a person has, or the type of chromosomal set that they have, as well as the reproductive organs a person has. That's the general description of the concept of sex.

Beyond that, however, we can say that sex consists of two types: male and female. We can say that male means that the specimen has small motile gametes, and if they're human they have XY chromosomes, and in 99.8% of cases they have a penis, testicles, and a prostate gland. We can say that female means that the specimen has large immobile gametes, and if they're human they have XX chromosomes, and in 99.8% of cases they have a uterus, ovaries, and a vaginal canal.

Now, go back and review your definitions with respect to gender. You've provided, and we all generally agree, with the concept of gender.

What then, describes or defines woman? What describes or defines man?

That, the specific definitions of man and woman, is the thing that you repeatedly insist is well-defined and accepted by all of the experts, but have consistently been unable or unwilling to provide.

 

[Boudicca90]

Yeah if you just use words at random you can make anything technically correct on a linguistic level.

A dog has 5 legs if I call a tail a leg. That's technically true and ABSOLUTELY ACROSS THE BOARD POINTLESS.

That's why I begged this thread a few pages back to try and make whatever point everyone is making without using specific words.

You are across the board incapable of making a point without defining the words in your point to go "I'm correct because I define it so."

2+2 can equal anything you want if you define 2 as a variable.

I ask you again. Give me a basic breakdown of what you are arguing without using the terms man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, or trans. If you have an actual point that is separate from the language, you should be able to do that. I bet you either can't or won't.

I can do it with my position. I can even describe the opinions of people I disagree with (in some cases very strongly) in that way. I can't do it with you because your entire point is "I'm right because I define things in a way that makes me right and then just repeat the definition back when asked to support it."

Given the title of this thread is "Trans women are not women", I would say it's impossible to have a discussion on this without using words relating to sex or gender.

My position has always been clear, trans women are women/female and trans men are men/male. And the gender/sex distinction is largely irrelevant.

It's not my issue that you define things differently than I do, that's a main part of the topic here.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am outing myself as a male-gendered shopper. (don't like shopping and have no clue why many women like to 'take a look' window shopping. Shopping with men ends up with 10 minutes of getting what I need, then lunch! Perfect.)
It's all getting very fuzzy, so that the labels people want are meaningless.

I'm a fellow male-gendered shopper. Solidarity, sister!

 

[d4m10n]

What then, describes or defines woman? What describes or defines man?

That, the specific definitions of man and woman, is the thing that you repeatedly insist is well-defined and accepted by all of the experts, but have consistently been unable or unwilling to provide.

One of his sources did provide it, though.

 

[Collin237]

You're going to need to provide some supporting evidence for your conspiracy theory.

I'm simply stating what seem to me to be obvious observations based on this thread and some google searches. I have no hypothesis about any kind of fancy behind-the-scenes deals that would qualify as a conspiracy theory.