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

[Boudicca90]

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.



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?

You are right in that I would want to be treated accurately, that's why if there is any confusion in a medical setting (which there sometimes is with me) I mention that I am transgender and assigned male at birth. That gets my point across without having to be labeled as "male", since I see myself as female.

As far as needing GD to be considered transgender, I don't think psychologically suffering by not being the gender/sex we see ourselves as is the sole determining factor, and therefore I don't think it is a necessary reason for a person to want to transition.

Under the old way of thinking about things, back when it was considered "Gender Identity Disorder", I felt I didn't fit with how the idea was that you needed to go all the way if you were really trans. I had dysphoria about many aspects of my body, but my genitals was not one of them, and I was (and still am) afraid to go through a potentially risky surgery to correct something I didn't feel needed to be corrected. Especially after a close friend of mine nearly died getting her bottom surgery done.

So I don't feel there is any one way to be transgender and want to transition. One of the things I've learned being a part of trans communities is that we are all on or own journeys.

 

[Rolfe]

And good luck with that. Just don't insist that other people have to move aside for you on this journey of yours. You're male, you remain male, stay in your lane and make sure the other men treat you right.

 

[Boudicca90]

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?

That's why I said justification for bigotry.

There are many different reasons people give here to want to restrict our rights, but the end result is just that, bigotry and discrimination. And to me the reasons behind it, whether they are malicious or with good intent, are ultimately irrelevant because they all have the same end goal.

 

[Distracted1]

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

Cart before the horse.
"Woman-ness" does not come from femininity, and exists independently of it.
"Femininity" comes from observed (or proscribed, if you wish to argue that) tendencies of women, bit it is not required that one be a woman to have the qualities generally acknowledged to fall under that heading.

 

[Boudicca90]

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.

I agree with the others here, gender isn't a performance, it's an innate identity.

I am not 'performing' womanhood or femininity any more than any other woman is.

 

[Rolfe]

Cart before the horse.
"Woman-ness" does not come from femininity, and exists independently of it.
"Femininity" comes from observed (or proscribed, if you wish to argue that) tendencies of women, bit it is not required that one be a woman to have the qualities generally acknowledged to fall under that heading.

Do you mean "proscribed" or "prescribed"? The words are opposites but it's unclear here which you mean. I'd have thought that our behaviours were more prescribed, but the other might fit certain circumstances.

 

[theprestige]

There are many different reasons people give here to want to restrict our rights

It seems like the only right in question is the right to be recognized as female, and accepted as female, by people who don't agree that you are female.

I don't think that's actually a right.

 

[Rolfe]

I agree with the others here, gender isn't a performance, it's an innate identity.

I am not 'performing' womanhood or femininity any more than any other woman is.

Funny how you spend so much time thinking about how your performance matches some ideal of femininity you seem to have dreamed up, and telling us how well you do it. Women don't do that, you know.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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

Yeah. Remember people saying Barack Obama wasn't "really" black, because he didn't act black enough? I get that same feeling when I hear people try to define "woman" or "man" by using the words "feminine" or "masculine".

 

[d4m10n]

Remember people saying Barack Obama wasn't "really" black, because he didn't act black enough? I get that same feeling when I hear people try to define "woman" or "man" by using the words "feminine" or "masculine".

Is there a feminine or womanly analog to black pride?

 

[theprestige]

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

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)

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.

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

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

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.

I agree with the others here, gender isn't a performance, it's an innate identity.

I am not 'performing' womanhood or femininity any more than any other woman is.

I concede. Pace Boudicca, transwomen are not women.

Terminology aside, this is an idea I've mooted before in this thread:

The more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman cannot be a woman, both in terms of biology and in terms of valid lived experience.

If she transitions in adulthood, then all of her formative experiences, all of her socialization from childhood to maturity, was based on a male social paradigm. She was not raised under the influence of social stereotypes and expectations for girls and women. She was not grouped with other girls and sharing experiences with them from a girl's perspective. She did not experience puberty as a woman. She did not experience the onset of menses - an experience almost all born women have in common.

She experienced childhood, puberty, and coming-of-age as a male. Likely a profoundly uncomfortable male. Likely unhappy in their own skin. But these are not a female's experiences. A transman has no way of knowing how a woman feels, or that their own feelings are the feelings of a woman. And the more I think about it, the more I think that a transwoman's feelings cannot be the feelings of a born woman.

I can believe I'm Napoleon all I want. I can insist all I want that my Napoleonity is a valid lived experience. But unless I was born in Corsica, gave revolutionaries a taste of the grapeshot, invaded Russia and lived to tell the tale, conquered Spain, and lost to Wellington at Waterloo... I do not have a valid lived experience of being Napoleon. I'm sorry, but I just don't. I have a valid lived experience of something. But while it's real to me, it probably shouldn't be binding on society, nor entitle me to any rights or privileges.

 

[theprestige]

Yeah. Remember people saying Barack Obama wasn't "really" black, because he didn't act black enough? I get that same feeling when I hear people try to define "woman" or "man" by using the words "feminine" or "masculine".

I don't recall seeing that argument, though I'm sure it must have come up from time to time, in various places.

The argument I do recall is that his formative experiences weren't typically African-American, and thus he was not as representative of that population as his skin color might lead you to believe.

Similar to how Bill Clinton did share a lot of those experiences, and could represent African-Americans better than other white presidents, as a result. I think they're all rather spurious arguments, though.

Anyway, it seems the whole thing boils down to a demand that trans people be exempt from sex-based segregation - or rather they have the right to decide for themselves which sex they're going to segregate with. Importantly, this does not seem to be a right that trans people wish to extend to cis people. A transwoman has the right to choose to segregate with the ladies, but a regular cis dude does not.

 

[Paul2]

That's why I said justification for bigotry.

There are many different reasons people give here to want to restrict our rights, but the end result is just that, bigotry and discrimination. And to me the reasons behind it, whether they are malicious or with good intent, are ultimately irrelevant because they all have the same end goal.

Someone with good intent might be trying to fairly balance competing interests, and that's not the goal of the bigot. Do you really think it's appropriate to treat that person in a discussion the same as some actual bigot?

I hope that my disagreeing with you here - about whether someone might disagree with good intent, and whether they should be treated the same way as an actual bigot - will not place me in the bigot category by you for the same reasons.

 

[Distracted1]

It seems like the only right in question is the right to be recognized as female, and accepted as female, by people who don't agree that you are female.

I don't think that's actually a right.

Not accepting that as a "right" carries with it real-world, and official, penalties.
You should be wary.

 

[theprestige]

Not accepting that as a "right" carries with it real-world, and official, penalties.
You should be wary.

Damn The Man.

 

[Sherkeu]

As far as needing GD to be considered transgender, I don't think psychologically suffering by not being the gender/sex we see ourselves as is the sole determining factor, and therefore I don't think it is a necessary reason for a person to want to transition.

Under the old way of thinking about things, back when it was considered "Gender Identity Disorder", I felt I didn't fit with how the idea was that you needed to go all the way if you were really trans. I had dysphoria about many aspects of my body, but my genitals was not one of them, and I was (and still am) afraid to go through a potentially risky surgery to correct something I didn't feel needed to be corrected. Especially after a close friend of mine nearly died getting her bottom surgery done.

So I don't feel there is any one way to be transgender and want to transition. One of the things I've learned being a part of trans communities is that we are all on or own journeys.

And herein lies a problem. You intrinsically feel female. Others have a compulsion to want to be the image of a woman. Some just want a 'bit' of femme for whatever reason (ie, feel 'sexy') so will just be halfway or may alternate between boy/girl. Some can microdose just to get enough of an androgynous effect.

But ALL of these people would be able to claim they were 'women' and also argue they'd be safer in the women's spaces. We all agree in that the women's spaces are safer, right?

And I'm sure you'd agree that all of these persons are not women- not in an authentic way. If anyone who claims trans gets to claim 'female', do you trust them? I don't.
I knew one (crossdresser) pretty intimately in SF and heard all the stories. He was NOT a woman- and didnt even claim to be one at that time. But he REALLY wanted to be seen as one sometimes. It was a complete addiction for him. I think I was one of very few people who knew (or know even now) given he was super high level at a tech company. But there were may many more just like him.
Not that he was 'bad'. He didnt try to enter womens spaces or anything but he absolutely should NOT be there or in any way be considered a woman.

What should be done? How do we tell the difference?

 

[Agatha]

Unless you want this thread to go back on moderated status, you are all going to have to make a much greater effort to be civil to each other and stop personalising your posts.

Use a person's preferred pronouns where you are aware of that preference.

Do not insult people, no matter how much you disagree with their views.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Objective observes can witness two females (or two males) kissing each other and behaving in romantic fashion toward one another. We can actually measure sexual attraction - there are observable physical responses. There's a specific area o the brain that becomes activated when one is sexually aroused, which can be observed.

I mean, call me crazy and all, but I think that being able to observe who a person dates and interacts with romantically is pretty strong evidence of their sexual orientation, wouldn't you say?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That highlighted bit right there bears repeating.

The physical elements of the female sex are often unimportant to members of the male sex. They're a bit more important when the female in question is one's spouse or daughter though.

Either way, sex is important to women for a host of reasons - most obvious of which is that women (by which I mean females of the human species) have been oppressed and discriminated against for thousands of years on the basis of their sex.

Not on the basis of some internal feeling about their social role, but actually literally on the basis of their sex.

FFS, listening to a male person insist over and over again that sex isn't important for females is very much like listening to a white person insist over and over again that skin color isn't important for black people.

 

[Olmstead]

Objective observes can witness two females (or two males) kissing each other and behaving in romantic fashion toward one another. We can actually measure sexual attraction - there are observable physical responses. There's a specific area o the brain that becomes activated when one is sexually aroused, which can be observed.

I mean, call me crazy and all, but I think that being able to observe who a person dates and interacts with romantically is pretty strong evidence of their sexual orientation, wouldn't you say?

I don't think that's the pertinent difference. We all agree that gender dysphoria is real, just like homosexuality. But when someone is homosexual they are simply homosexual. When a transwoman has gender dysphoria, she doesn't simply have gender dysphoria, she is also a woman, and this is where things start breaking down.