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

[Collin237]

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

That article is one of the most vapid equivocations I've ever read.

 

[Thermal]

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.

Yeah, but I think he was more focused on demonstrating the reality angle than the nuances of unreality.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

I may have missed it in the past, but I have never noticed you making that point in the past. If that is what you mean, that as a result of hormone treatment you are now physically more female than male, I for one wouldn't argue. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but neither would I disagree. On the other hand, if you said the same thing about an untransitioned transwoman, i.e. someone with no medical treatment, just an assertion of female gender identity, I would definitely disagree.

Where a lot of us stand on this issue is that the "party line" of trans rights supporters is that no medical transition ought to be necessary in order to gain all rights and privileges associated with womanhood, including access to sports and to female only spaces. I think you have said the same thing in the past, although I think you have left the possibility of hormone level screening open for elite divisions. Many of us strongly disagree with that "party line". Exactly how much transition ought to be required before gaining access to female only spaces is a topic that I do not know enough to answer, and where there might be significant disagreement among those who are generally unsupportive of the trans activist agenda.

 

[smartcooky]

I may have missed it in the past, but I have never noticed you making that point in the past. If that is what you mean, that as a result of hormone treatment you are now physically more female than male, I for one wouldn't argue. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but neither would I disagree. On the other hand, if you said the same thing about an untransitioned transwoman, i.e. someone with no medical treatment, just an assertion of female gender identity, I would definitely disagree.

Where a lot of us stand on this issue is that the "party line" of trans rights supporters is that no medical transition ought to be necessary in order to gain all rights and privileges associated with womanhood, including access to sports and to female only spaces. I think you have said the same thing in the past, although I think you have left the possibility of hormone level screening open for elite divisions. Many of us strongly disagree with that "party line". Exactly how much transition ought to be required before gaining access to female only spaces is a topic that I do not know enough to answer, and where there might be significant disagreement among those who are generally unsupportive of the trans activist agenda.

There is a term for this... its called "moving the goalposts"

 

[Collin237]

There is a term for this... its called "moving the goalposts"

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

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?

Perception of one's own gender identity is absolutely a matter of self-determination.

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

To me, comparison to sexual orientation seems more of a critique of gender identity as simply self-id, or self-determination.

A man believed he was straight, identified as straight, and married a woman right out of college. Ten years later, he realized he was in fact gay, was gay all along, and identified as such. His sexual identity was referring to something, the sex that he was attracted to. It was not referring to his belief or self-identification that he was straight or gay (or how society expected him to behave, or how straight he acted). That is how he recognized that his previous identity was incorrect, and we all would agree it was after he explained himself, even though his attraction was an internal state.

What is the something that gender identity refers to?

 

[Sherkeu]

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

Ok. I think I see where all the butting of heads is coming from.

For most of us here, we would accept that trans women (the dysmorphic ones anyway) have a female sense of self derived from genetic or biological processes. We would also accept that there is variability across sex and gender

There are 'indicators' that this is true but psychosexual development is a complex process that is not yet well-understood.

Here is one of the later articles on Gender Identity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139786/

After reviewing all the data the conclusion is: need more data.

In conclusion, the existence of brain phenotypes in line with the idea of a brain sexual differentiation seems to be confirmed by reported studies, including both cisgender and transgender individuals. However, the relationship between gender behavioural differences and brain dimorphic areas is still not clear, since such differences may be the result not only of anatomical features but also life experiences. Furthermore, the popular explanation that there is a female and a male brain on the base of gender behavioural differences is not supported by a strong empirical background , as, for example, men and women share more similarities than differences. Furthermore, a great variability in behavioural and psychological aspects is shown between genders . Moreover, the size of the brain differences is usually small.
...
Prenatal and pubertal sex hormones seem to permanently affect human behaviour and, in addition, heritability studies have demonstrated a role of genetic components. Future studies (i.e., genome wide studies) are needed to better clarify the complex interaction between genes, anatomy and hormonal influences on psychosexual development.

Of the dozen or so studies that followed young boys with GD (or previously GID), the majority of them ended up gay men following puberty (desisted), a few were straight, and a few remained transgender (or transexual).

This seems to align well with the theory that is is part genetics + processes from in-utero hormones right up through puberty and the interactions with enzymes, proteins, receptors, etc.... that result in GD and why it can desist in puberty. This would leave some of these kids with a distinct and permanent female sense of identity. Depending on the level of dissonance, medical transition or gender expression to a female appearance to match may be the only solution.

In this way, I'd accept that you are a female, to you. What else would you believe? That would follow quite logically.

In terms of speaking scientifically in terms of biological sexual dimorphism, you'd be considered male- at least for the rest of the working parts. I'm sure you'd want your doctor to treat your body correctly, including the added feminizing factors of your transition.
No one is misgendering a trans woman for that to be true.

Now, about those other 'trans women' who don't seem to follow the above etiology, who don't have GD...I do wonder. You must be keenly aware of the difference between your experience and theirs, yes?

 

[Olmstead]

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.

Female, woman, whatever. They're words. I can't give people anything for words. I might be able to give people something for what the words denote. You know, once they tell me what that is.


"Muffins are $2 ... Those are pebbles."
"My definition of money includes pebbles."
"That's lovely. I'm not giving you a muffin in exchange for pebbles."
"But you gave a muffin to the other guy in exchange for his definition of money."
"You know what, you're right, here's your muffin."
"... That's a stone."

 

[Distracted1]

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.

I see no consistency there.
"woman" = adult human female.
Its meaning is no more ambiguous than "male" or "female".
If one is to hold to the objective meaning of one term, where is the logic in allowing the other to mean whatever one wishes it to mean?

 

[Roboramma]

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.

Joe made his position clear (earlier) without using those words. If you really can't, then you don't fully understand your own position.

 

[Aber]

From today's Times

Women working in the Home Office are having to visit other departments to use the lavatory because so many of the building’s facilities are unisex.

Many women said that they felt uncomfortable using mixed-sex lavatories. Long queues built up outside the remaining ladies’ toilets when most people were back in the office.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/home-office-women-driven-out-of-mixed-lavatories-qjclblb9f

 

[theprestige]

I see no consistency there.
"woman" = adult human female.
Its meaning is no more ambiguous than "male" or "female".
If one is to hold to the objective meaning of one term, where is the logic in allowing the other to mean whatever one wishes it to mean?

We've been discussing the difference between the social construct and the biological facts, and trying to use separate words for each. Everybody seems to be at least tacitly on board. Except Boudicca, who rejects the distinction. And you, who would have the distinction extend to both terms.

I'm sympathetic to your position. I just have no use for it in this context.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm with Distracted. And with a very large number of women. We are women and we do not consent to the appropriation of that word to include males.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Muffins are $2 ... Those are pebbles."
"My definition of money includes pebbles."
"That's lovely. I'm not giving you a muffin in exchange for pebbles."
"But you gave a muffin to the other guy in exchange for his definition of money."
"You know what, you're right, here's your muffin."
"... That's a stone."

A man is praying to God. He says, "Oh great and mighty god, to whom a million years is but a second, and a million dollars is but a penny... could I please have a penny?"

And God answers his prayer, saying, "Sure, just wait one second."

 

[d4m10n]

IWe are women and we do not consent to the appropriation of that word to include males.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere if we are waiting for everyone to get on the exact same page regarding key terms like "women" and "females" and perhaps even "biological sex." Best we can do is clear up what we individually mean to convey.

 

[Paul2]

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?

Bump for Boudicca90

 

[Meadmaker]

We've been discussing the difference between the social construct and the biological facts, and trying to use separate words for each. Everybody seems to be at least tacitly on board. Except Boudicca, who rejects the distinction. And you, who would have the distinction extend to both terms.

I'm sympathetic to your position. I just have no use for it in this context.

I'm not on board with it. I recognize it's a linguistic issue and not necessarily a reality issue, but I prefer the use of "woman" as meaning adult human female.

 

[Distracted1]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere if we are waiting for everyone to get on the exact same page regarding key terms like "women" and "females" and perhaps even "biological sex." Best we can do is clear up what we individually mean to convey.

Yet the entire, voluminous, thread is premised on the seemingly obvious tautology that
"A is not B".
If one is making an argument that somehow A is B (seemingly the only thing that could be in contention) then the crux of the argument must lay in the definitions of "A" and "B".
There is nothing else to argue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm not on board with it. I recognize it's a linguistic issue and not necessarily a reality issue, but I prefer the use of "woman" as meaning adult human female.

I would like to clarify that my earlier argument that people involved in this discussion should be able to make their points without specific language was not me suggesting the language should not be used in everyday life or even in argumentatives.

I'm not saying terms man/woman/male/female/sex/gender don't belong in this discussion, only that a point that can only be made by using them can't be expressed as equally with a meaningful definition of the term are problematic.

If I say "Ted threw the ball" and you ask me to clarify what I mean by "ball" I can go "Ted threw the small spherical object commonly used in sports and games." I can't go "Ted threw the thing I define as a ball" when you ask me what I mean by ball.

I know that Boudicca completely and totally defines herself as a woman. That doesn't need clarification. What definition of "woman" she is using is what does and "Well it's what I define as woman" is not valid.

That's why the "Okay but gay is self defining!" thing is not a valid comparison, because you can still swap "gay" out in the sentence with a meaningful definition.

Rolfe and Emily think that women deserve safe and secure places away from men. They have made it clear that they are using "woman" to mean "people possessed of biological vaginas."

I am unsatisfied with social standards that treat men as inherently predatory. I have made it clear that by "men" I mean "people possessed of biological pensis."

Me and Rolfe/Emily have been in heated, even outright hostile, discussion as to this matter, but we are ACTUALLY HAVING A DISCUSSION because none of us are hiding behind terms we define as the thing we define them as and none of us are pretending to use non-standard definitions is the way to win the argument. We all know what the other one is arguing. That's how adults, no matter how much their opinions differ, actually argue.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think we're going to get anywhere if we are waiting for everyone to get on the exact same page regarding key terms like "women" and "females" and perhaps even "biological sex." Best we can do is clear up what we individually mean to convey.

If this means accepting the erasure of women by redefining the word or allowing others to redefine the word for their own bad faith arguments, I'm not on board.