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

[Thermal]

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.

Yep. I totally get transfolk wanting to be recognized as the gender they feel they are. No problem, everyone deserves legitimacy. So we get loose with the definition of "woman". But crossing into "female" as an abstract identity is simply reality denial.

 

[Sherkeu]

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."

Replace 'social standards' with 'reasonable protections' and maybe it makes sense to you.

There is a reason that women who work late shifts are offered security or male coworkers to walk them to their vehicles.
It's not just for ***** and giggles or it wouldn't be a thing.

eta: and by the way I have had a co-worker killed in our office parking lot. Horrible. He blocked her car from leaving and she could not get away. I remember hoping so badly that she could recover before my boss told me I shouldn't....her head was so mangled that death was the kinder option.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Two things.

1) You only have to understand what other people mean when they use words differently than you do, you do not have to change your own usage.

2) Erasure? Adult human females aren't going anywhere.

 

[Distracted1]

Yep. I totally get transfolk wanting to be recognized as the gender they feel they are. No problem, everyone deserves legitimacy. So we get loose with the definition of "woman". But crossing into "female" as an abstract identity is simply reality denial.

Yet, both "Woman" and "Female" have distinct definitions.
What logic makes it different to allow "woman" to mean whatever one wishes it to, yet to hold firm on "female"?
None that I can see.

 

[Thermal]

Yet, both "Woman" and "Female" have distinct definitions.
What logic makes it different to allow "woman" to mean whatever one wishes it to, yet to hold firm on "female"?
None that I can see.

Because "man" has always been a little slippery (alternatively meaning simply a human, a traditionally strong/macho guy, etc), so even if woman usually means "adult female human", there might be some wiggle room for concepts.

But "female" is simply biological. We're just going Humpty Dumpty if we start changing definitions there.

 

[Sherkeu]

Yep. I totally get transfolk wanting to be recognized as the gender they feel they are. No problem, everyone deserves legitimacy. So we get loose with the definition of "woman". But crossing into "female" as an abstract identity is simply reality denial.

The concession I make on this is that someones personal reality is real to them. And since this is a real condition, I grant that it may be difficult for that person to step outside themselves and into my shoes.

None of us are writing policy so it may be a good exercise to explore from their point of view. I have already learned a few things I didn't know before- not that I am running to open the flood gates to women's spaces. It is just understanding.

 

[Distracted1]

Because "man" has always been a little slippery (alternatively meaning simply a human, a traditionally strong/macho guy, etc), so even if woman usually means "adult female human", there might be some wiggle room for concepts.

But "female" is simply biological. We're just going Humpty Dumpty if we start changing definitions there.

I have never found the words to be "Slippery".
"Man" is a.) a name of our species- or a member of our species. or- more commonly-
b.) an adult human male.

Probably just me. When I was much younger, I was the smartass that would ask "female whats?" whenever a friend would mention "females" in reference to Women, or Girls.


The problem seems to be that people have added value-judgments, and assumed meanings to words that do not exist in the words' definition. Those assumptions vary from individual to individual, so including them in a "definition" of a term only muddies the meaning- it never clarifies it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well again that's why I'm still super pissed about the long... long... interminable side discussion the "I'm not trans but I totally support trans people" side made us all go through where we argued the difference between sex and gender as if that was the key to all of this that lasted until we could all feel the heat death of the universe getting closer and all had to pretend it was super important because the mythology built around the trans movement is that that difference is key.

And then when we got an actual trans person, not just another self-proclaimed transperson whisperer who speaks on their behalf, in the discussion all that went right out the window. No Boudicca's is female and a woman. She's a biological female. Her penis is a biological female penis. There is no difference between sex and gender and that entire LOOOOOOOOOOONG digression was pointless just like I kept saying it was while we were having it. And now we have to pretend like that doesn't matter and still pretend like we're having the same conversation.

Again the other big issue is what the trans people are telling us that they want and what the trans people supporters are telling us the trans people want is not lining anywhere near as much as is reasonable to expect us to just not notice.

 

[theprestige]

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.

Context matters. We agree that there is a social construct of womanhood, that anyone can perform or attempt to perform, to whatever degree they choose, and with varying degrees of acceptance by their surrounding society. I think it's reasonable to use the term woman to refer to that performance, as distinct from the biological reality.

 

[Distracted1]

The concession I make on this is that someones personal reality is real to them. And since this is a real condition, I grant that it may be difficult for that person to step outside themselves and into my shoes.

None of us are writing policy so it may be a good exercise to explore from their point of view. I have already learned a few things I didn't know before- not that I am running to open the flood gates to women's spaces. It is just understanding.

This sounds (even to my own ears) incredibly pompous, yet it is how I feel,
Am I doing anyone a favor by going along with their delusions in order to not make them upset?

I don't believe that I am. And If I am wrong about that, at least I am not being dishonest to the person who is offended, my viewpoint is crystal clear.

 

[Distracted1]

Context matters. We agree that there is a social construct of womanhood, that anyone can perform or attempt to perform, to whatever degree they choose, and with varying degrees of acceptance by their surrounding society. I think it's reasonable to use the term woman to refer to that performance, as distinct from the biological reality.

Not without some sort of prefix (as in "trans-woman").
"Woman" is not a performance.

 

[theprestige]

Not without some sort of prefix (as in "trans-woman").
"Woman" is not a performance.

Context matters. And yes it is.

 

[Meadmaker]

Context matters. We agree that there is a social construct of womanhood,

I'm not sure I do agree with that, and if there is one, I don't think there ought to be.

 

[Sherkeu]

Context matters. We agree that there is a social construct of womanhood, that anyone can perform or attempt to perform, to whatever degree they choose, and with varying degrees of acceptance by their surrounding society. I think it's reasonable to use the term woman to refer to that performance, as distinct from the biological reality.

See: Butch lesbians who don't like being misgendered. Fully female, fully women. Don't want to be men. But now looked at as trans men or 'gender non conforming" or "non-binary".

Must be tough for them these days as their community cannot just assume She/Her anymore- it's always gotta be a question now.

(the younger ones probably dont mind)

 

[Distracted1]

I'm not sure I do agree with that, and if there is one, I don't think there ought to be.

The social construct being referred to (the Prestiges' "performance of womanness" ) already has a name- "Femininity".
"Feminine" means one thing, "Woman" has a different meaning.

Edited to remove superfluous, and uncalled for snark.

 

[Olmstead]

Context matters. We agree that there is a social construct of womanhood, that anyone can perform or attempt to perform, to whatever degree they choose, and with varying degrees of acceptance by their surrounding society. I think it's reasonable to use the term woman to refer to that performance, as distinct from the biological reality.

There's also a social construct of black people ...

I don't think this is the definition trangender people want.

 

[Rolfe]

Two things.

1) You only have to understand what other people mean when they use words differently than you do, you do not have to change your own usage.

2) Erasure? Adult human females aren't going anywhere.

That's quite a stretch when you're talking about the word for "adult human female". It makes calling a stone a doughnut look sane by comparison.

We may not be going anywhere, but if we can't have any protections or categories that the more dominant, aggressive sex is excluded from, or even have our own word to describe us, we might as well not be here. Until men want something from us that they can't get from other men of course.

 

[d4m10n]

The social construct being referred to (the Prestiges' "performance of womanness" ) already has a name- "Femininity".

"Feminine" means one thing, "Woman" has a different meaning.

Unless you are taking the meaning of "woman" from the paper linked upthread by LondonJohn, in which case femininity is fairly central.

 

[Rolfe]

Context matters. And yes it is.

No, woman is not a costume or a performance or a feeling in some guy's head or something you LARP for a sexual buzz. It is the condition of being an adult human female, irrespective of clothes, performance or indeed feelings. Nobody needs to perform any tricks to be a woman, if they are one, and no amount of performing-seal tricks will make someone one if they are not.

 

[Rolfe]

Repeal the Gender Recognition Act, a Homophobic and Sexist Relic

This is an excellent article and says a great deal that badly needs saying.

It is not illegal in the U.K. to wear clothes described as for the opposite sex. David Bowie, Boy George and others were not arrested for wearing make-up. Boys I grew up with commonly wore eye-liner. If one faced discrimination based on what one was wearing, for example, not gaining a promotion at work because one was male who liked to wear skirts, a claim of sex discrimination could and should be taken. The GRA was originally passed with homophobic intentions, to prevent having to legislate same-sex marriage, and that legal barrier and inequality has thankfully been removed. The GRA, the sex-role stereotype recognition Act, does not serve to right a legislative injustice but rather to entrench a world-view. This creed is one where women’s oppression is natural and desired, same-sex attraction is bigotry which can be unlearnt and individual men get to define reality based on their wishes. It is a dogma where children who do not conform to strict social categories of boyish and girlish are declared to have been born wrong. The suffix ‘ism’ denotes that this is a belief system, like how ‘ism’ is added to feminism, Catholicism, conservatism, liberalism. It frightens and offends me that the government has endorsed these doctrines through legislation which intends to compel belief and subscription.