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

[JoeMorgue]

Is something that can only be self-determined inherently arbitrary?

I mean, how can you tell that someone is heterosexual vs homosexual beyond just taking their word that their self-determination is real?

We've already had this talk somewhere in the billion of go-nowhere subdivides we've been forced to go down, along with religion, food preference, and the 4 thread, thousand posts hijack about the difference between sex and gender which was SUPER IMPORTANT I'M TOTLLY SERIUS GUYZ LOOKIT ALL MY CITES while we were having it but the one actual transgender person, not transgender defender, has now declared pointless.

Sexual preference is self-determined, but it's not arbitrary because it has actual identifiable features.

If a male has sex with only females, is physically, sexually, and emotionally attracted only to females, marries a female, and still demands we think of him as gay because that's what he identifies as, then that would be the same thing as thing discussion.

WORDS MEAN THINGS. You can't be a married bachelor, a vegetarian who eats meat, or an atheist who believes in God. You can't be a married man who "identifies as a bachelor" or a meat eater who "identifies as a vegetarian."

You can describe homosexuality, bisexuality, and straight without just referring back to itself and going "I define it thusly."

I can describe homosexuality, bisexuality, and straight under my "without using the word man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, or trans or the three terms themselves." caveat.

 

[Meadmaker]

They are male.

Being able to become pregnant doesn't automatically mean they are female.

And yet, it is a very important thing. I mean, incredibly important. The ability to become pregnant is all by itself important even to most of those people whose physical form suggests that they ought to be able to become pregnant, but for some reason they can't. It is a cause of great happiness for some of them, and great sadness for others. On the other hand, for people who produce motile gametes, the inability to become pregnant hardly matters at all, outside of Monty Python skits.

Whether or not they can actually become pregnant, or want to become pregnant, having organs similar to people who can become pregnant seems to be significant to a lot of them.

It matters so much that, in my opinion, there ought to be a simple word that is used to describe the condition of having the sexual organs of people who can become pregnant.

Of course, J. K. Rowling said the same thing, and was raked over the coals for it. Fortunately, even if she may have lost a bit of money over it, she has plenty to spare.

 

[Meadmaker]

The TRAs are now congratulating him for his cleverness in coming second, rather than winning, to prove that of course males have no advantage because one guy in it for a laugh didn't beat the top woman athlete.

Yeah, I have a hunch that the person who came in third wasn't all that interested in downing cans of Tesco lager.

ETA: That's what the second place finisher, the trans-woman for a day racer, said his primary interest at the time was. Oh, and I just want to assure everyone I'm not misgendering him. His female self-identification only lasted for a very brief time. When he tweeted about it he was a boy again.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't recall much pushback against those specific words of yours.

Well then let me remind you. I said that either it was circular, because "femininity" was just another way of saying what women do, which makes the definition turn into, "A woman is someone expected to do the things women do." or, it means that society gets to define what women do, and anyone who is insufficiently feminine for society's standards isn't really a woman.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We've already had this talk somewhere in the billion of go-nowhere subdivides we've been forced to go down, along with religion, food preference, and the 4 thread, thousand posts hijack about the difference between sex and gender which was SUPER IMPORTANT I'M TOTLLY SERIUS GUYZ LOOKIT ALL MY CITES while we were having it but the one actual transgender person, not transgender defender, has now declared pointless.

Sexual preference is self-determined, but it's not arbitrary because it has actual identifiable features.

If a male has sex with only females, is physically, sexually, and emotionally attracted only to females, marries a female, and still demands we think of him as gay because that's what he identifies as, then that would be the same thing as thing discussion.

WORDS MEAN THINGS. You can't be a married bachelor, a vegetarian who eats meat, or an atheist who believes in God. You can't be a married man who "identifies as a bachelor" or a meat eater who "identifies as a vegetarian."

You can describe homosexuality, bisexuality, and straight without just referring back to itself and going "I define it thusly."

I can describe homosexuality, bisexuality, and straight under my "without using the word man, woman, male, female, sex, gender, or trans or the three terms themselves." caveat.

There have been plenty of closeted gays that only had sex with women while closeted and have lived their entire lives indistinguishable from a heterosexual man. A person's behavior is not always a reflection of their self-perception, especially in cases where there is severe social stigma attached. I think most would argue that being homosexual is something that is an immutable, self-determined characteristic, even if it is suppressed or otherwise not measurable by others

 

[LondonJohn]

Interesting point. Martina Navratilova was coached by a post-operative transwoman (Renee Richards) for some time. She said that at the time when she was women's world no 1, at the absolute peak of her fitness and her career and her tennis skills, she could barely hang on against Richards, who had never been that close to the top in men's tennis, and was by then in his late 40s, that is over the hill.

Richards wasn't just on female hormones, Richards was fully castrated. No testicles, no testosterone. Not even the low-level testosterone females have, secreted by the ovaries. (OK maybe a trace from the adrenals.) And was still able to stand at least equal to one of the best female players of all time, when she was at her peak and he was at the age when the men are all playing each other for laughs after their stints in the commentary box.

Transwomen should not be permitted to compete in the women's categories at an elite level of sport, in those sports in which musculoskeletal and/or cardiopulmonary strength plays a role in competitive advantage.

This is an extremely narrow and extremely specific "opt out" policy which will affect a very small number of transwomen. In pretty much every other situation, transwomen will be recognised - and protected - as women. They will be male (even though they can change their official listed sex to female if they wish*, but they will to all intents be women.


* And this is a sensible and pragmatic policy: it means, for example, that a transwoman travelling to another country will not have to present her passport upon entry to that country with "male" showing as her official sex. However, this does not diminish the medical and genetic fact that transwomen are males.

 

[theprestige]

Transwomen should not be permitted to compete in the women's categories at an elite level of sport

But they should be allowed to **** females out of advancement to the elite levels, at every intermediate stage of their athletic career, right?

 

[JoeMorgue]

There have been plenty of closeted gays that only had sex with women while closeted and have lived their entire lives indistinguishable from a heterosexual man.

That's nowhere near what we are talking about and you know it.

There's a difference between being ashamed of being left-handed so you force yourself to write poorly with your right and using your left hand to write, shoot, open doors, and pitch but still identifying as "Right Handed."

Here's the difference. If nothing changes when you change definitions, you aren't using them correctly.

If Boudicca identified as a man instead of a woman, what would change?

Again WORDS MEAN THINGS. That shouldn't be a controversial or "hateful" idea.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's nowhere near what we are talking about and you know it.

There's a difference between being ashamed of being left-handed so you force yourself to write poorly with your right and using your left hand to write, shoot, open doors, and pitch but still identifying as "Right Handed."

Here's the difference. If nothing changes when you change definitions, you aren't using them correctly.

If Boudicca identified as a man instead of a woman, what would change?

Again WORDS MEAN THINGS. That shouldn't be a controversial or "hateful" idea.

It would be hard to know if such a self-determination change was meaningful because it's pretty much impossible to know, as an outsider, whether that person was being sincere. Such uncertainties don't mean that self-determined perceptions aren't meaningful.

 

[theprestige]

The problem seems to be, how to reconcile support for TRA extremists, without committing to the idea that sex is subjective.

 

[Boudicca90]

Transwomen should not be permitted to compete in the women's categories at an elite level of sport, in those sports in which musculoskeletal and/or cardiopulmonary strength plays a role in competitive advantage.



This is an extremely narrow and extremely specific "opt out" policy which will affect a very small number of transwomen. In pretty much every other situation, transwomen will be recognised - and protected - as women. They will be male (even though they can change their official listed sex to female if they wish*, but they will to all intents be women.





* And this is a sensible and pragmatic policy: it means, for example, that a transwoman travelling to another country will not have to present her passport upon entry to that country with "male" showing as her official sex. However, this does not diminish the medical and genetic fact that transwomen are males.

This is definitely an area we have always disagreed.

We should be able to compete with cisgender athletes at all levels, though I could agree to more strict hormone requirements at an elite level. Even the IOC disagrees with you since we are allowed to compete in the Olympics, which I'm sure you would agree is the pinnacle of elite sports.

And we are not males.

 

[caveman1917]

Sorry? Your "several clinical researchers" count for more in terms of authority and credibility than the sum of the links I posted (which, in case you forgot, includes the American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics, the Canadian Government Institutes of Health Research, Stamford Medical Research Institute, and a paper authored by 18 leading clinical professors and published in one of the bibles of medical research and policy, The Lancet)?

Let's try this: you tell me precisely which *expert* you're looking for?


(I mean, I realise full well that what's going on here is a disingenuous gambit which has little to do with debating in good faith, but there's no harm in going through the motions for the sake of..... something or other....)

Yes exactly, an obvious disingenuous gambit which has little to do with debating in good faith. But let's go through the motions:

I gave an article on the upcoming UK census quoting some clinical researchers pointing out issues. You then responded with a BBC article which neither addressed the issues which were pointed out, nor quoted any relevant experts. I point out that your article didn't quote any experts on the matter. You then refer to a bunch of other links, not the BBC article being referenced, which indeed do contain expert statements but which do not refer to the UK census at all.

So yes, yet another obvious disingenuous gambit by our favourite bad faith arguer, namely when it is pointed out that your source on an issue didn't quote any experts, you dishonestly substitute other sources which do not even address the issue in question.

Yes. You've got me bang to rights. That's exactly what I was doing. Full marks to you for spotting it and pointing it out. After all, it's extremely difficult to have a reasonable and rational debate when one (or more) of the participants is hell-bent on debating in bad faith. Isn't it?

Have you tried not being so hell-bent on debating in bad faith? Just an idea... Maybe this sort of charade works for you in the courtroom, but it ain't working here.

 

[Sherkeu]

For scientific and medical purposes, the ability to become pregnant is a distinction. But for all other matters, I don't see biology as that relevant when it comes to sex.

Like the census discussion earlier, I would put my sex as female, as I always do when I am given the option. Likewise a transgender man would put male.

But biological traits of females are important, right? That is the perception part that should help with dysphoria and gendering. You are making feminizing changes to what you were before, right?

Or perhaps you disassociate? As if your body with it's male attributes isn't a real part of 'you'? Is that the error?

 

[d4m10n]

And we are not males.

If you want to persuade skeptics to adopt a nonstandard usage of "male" you should at least tell them what the new definition is going to be.

 

[Olmstead]

If a transwoman weren't a woman, she would be delusional. It would be abhorrent to say that a transwoman is delusional. How dare you!? Hence, a transwoman is a woman.

 

[theprestige]

If a transwoman weren't a woman, she would be delusional. It would be abhorrent to say that a transwoman is delusional. How dare you!? Hence, a transwoman is a woman.

If a transwoman weren't female, you mean. Transwomen can be women all the livelong day, as far as I'm concerned. Whatever woman means to you.

And I dare because biological reality is on my side.

 

[Thermal]

If a transwoman weren't female, you mean. Transwomen can be women all the livelong day, as far as I'm concerned. Whatever woman means to you.

And I dare because biological reality is on my side.

A reference to Phillip K Dick might be apropos here but a bit on the nose, surname-wise.

 

[Collin237]

If a transwoman weren't a woman, she would be delusional. It would be abhorrent to say that a transwoman is delusional. How dare you!? Hence, a transwoman is a woman.

That's where Hume's guillotine comes in.

 

[Boudicca90]

But biological traits of females are important, right? That is the perception part that should help with dysphoria and gendering. You are making feminizing changes to what you were before, right?

Or perhaps you disassociate? As if your body with it's male attributes isn't a real part of 'you'? Is that the error?

Yes, I have been making changes to become more female. I don't deny that I had a male body before, despite that I had/have a female gender identity.

My point is that by transitioning I am no longer physically male.

Here is a great article by Julia Serano that I found that explains pretty well how I feel about this whole argument: https://juliaserano.medium.com/transgender-people-and-biological-sex-myths-c2a9bcdb4f4a

 

[Collin237]

A reference to Phillip K Dick might be apropos here but a bit on the nose, surname-wise.

Phillip K Dick wasn't exactly right. It's possible, in some cases, for an unreality to persist in one's perception, even if one doesn't believe it.