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

[Emily's Cat]

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.

They might be important to the individual who is self-perceiving them, but I fail to see how any individuals completely subjective, unverifiable, self-perception should be binding on anyone else.

It brings me back to Eddie Izzard. Izzard has been an out transvestite straight man for a long time. He has worn make-up and women's clothing frequently as an adult man.

Recently, Izzard has decided that he is a transwoman.

Izzard has changed literally nothing at all about himself. He is not changing how he dresses or how he presents himself. He has no intention of undergoing any medical procedures at all. He does not have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, he will not be taking hormones, or having any surgeries at all done.

With the utterance of some magic words, Izzard went from being a well-regarded male comedian who happens to be a transvestite... to the funniest female comedian. Were I Sarah Millican, I'd be a it miffed at this.

Literally nothing at all about Izzard has changed. Nothing.

Yet, on the basis of a declaration that cannot be in any way verified... Izzard now is on the side arguing that he should have access to female changing spaces, female prisons, female shelters, and female honors as a right.

Why on earth should anyone at all - let alone actual females - be obligated to accommodate his declaration?

 

[theprestige]

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.

Such uncertainties do mean, however, that self-determined perceptions probably shouldn't be a basis for public policy, or binding on anyone else.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 entire article is a bucket of woo.

Biological sex is binary. There are ONLY two sexes. That's it - no more. There are only two gametes. There is no third gamete, and it is impossible to have an "in between" gamete that is "moderately sized and semi-mobile". There is no in-between.

Serano is a crackpot.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Apparently "female" is defined by "boobs"? And a higher body-fat percentage?

Let's just ignore all of the other secondary and tertiary sexual characteristics, and we'll just pretend that primary characteristics (reproductive organs) simply don't exist.

Hey folks! I spray-painted this bosc pear read, so now it's an apple!

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

As soon as someone can definitively show me a female bovine that identifies as a bull, or a male deer that identifies as a doe, or a female horse that identifies as a stallion, I shall reconsider my definitions.

Until that time, "Woman" is an adult female human. Woman is to Man as Doe is to Stag, and as Mare is to Stallion, and as Cow is to Bull.

 

[Distracted1]

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.

My error.
PrEscribed. As in, "directed to".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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 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.

I'm willing to provisionally use "woman" to mean an explicitly gender construct role in discussions that relate specifically to transgender people.

But not beyond that context. And the use is merely courtesy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Context matters. And yes it is.

No. "Woman" is NOT a performance. "Woman" is not a costume for men to put on and engage in a minstrel show of femininity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

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

It sure as hell isn't the definition that WOMEN want.

 

[theprestige]

No. "Woman" is NOT a performance. "Woman" is not a costume for men to put on and engage in a minstrel show of femininity.

Sometimes when I'm catching up with a thread, I'll open specific posts in new tabs, so that I can come back and address them if I get to the end of the thread and they haven't already been addressed. And if they have been addressed, I'll just close the tabs. Huge time-saver. And face-saver : )

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

What rights are you being denied?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sometimes when I'm catching up with a thread, I'll open specific posts in new tabs, so that I can come back and address them if I get to the end of the thread and they haven't already been addressed. And if they have been addressed, I'll just close the tabs. Huge time-saver. And face-saver : )

Yeah... sometimes I just don't realize how far behind I am though

 

[JoeMorgue]

And this isn't helping anybody.

Nobody in this thread wants any of the other people in it to live in fear, hatred, discrimination, or having to fight their own internal sense of self.

Yeah there are some deep, core disagreements that we probably aren't going to come to some neat Kumbaya moral the story moment over. Fine, that happens sometimes.

But I still we can and all want to make things better for everyone involved.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The slippery slope is actually a slope, and is actually slippery.

It's a 50-degree slope made from ice, liberally sprayed with teflon.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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?

Hmmm - I'm not convinced there is a difference a man (male) who "feels like woman" (more accurately, feels like what he imagines a woman feels like) and a man who really wants to be seen as a woman (i.e. is obsessed). To be sure, there is considerable behavioral heterogeneity in such folks (including differences in threat to females), but I would bet said differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. e.g. both groups appear to view womanhood as a performance to some degree....

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hmmm - I'm not convinced there is a difference a man (male) who "feels like woman" (more accurately, feels like what he imagines a woman feels like) and a man who really wants to be seen as one (i.e. is obsessed). To be sure, there is considerable behavioral heterogeneity in such folks (including differences in threat to females), but I would bet said differences are quantitative rather than qualitative. e.g. both groups appear to view womanhood as a performance to some degree....

I think the difference, which Sherkeu is trying to be gentle about, is that one group gains sexual arousal and stimulus from being perceived as women, and being allowed into "forbidden" female spaces. They are being sexually aroused by breaking that social taboo and infiltrating the "mysterious other". This group uses their claim to womanhood as a way to force women to accommodate their sexual paraphilia - without the actual consent of the women involved.

The other group isn't doing that.

Both may be performing femininity, sure. But their reasons for doing so are different.

To be more crass about it... All podiatrists handle feet. But a podiatrist with a foot fetish is something I would find inherently discomfiting, and a violation of sorts.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I think the difference, which Sherkeu is trying to be gentle about, is that one group gains sexual arousal and stimulus from being perceived as women, and being allowed into "forbidden" female spaces. They are being sexually aroused by breaking that social taboo and infiltrating the "mysterious other". This group uses their claim to womanhood as a way to force women to accommodate their sexual paraphilia - without the actual consent of the women involved.

The other group isn't doing that.

Both may be performing femininity, sure. But their reasons for doing so are different.

To be more crass about it... All podiatrists handle feet. But a podiatrist with a foot fetish is something I would find inherently discomfiting, and a violation of sorts.

Good point - and analogy. I guess my only rejoinder is that I think it's often not so clear cut- and there may multiple things going on in the same person (I suspect every TW has spent some time thinking sexual thoughts about themselves as a woman). People also have a great capacity for self-deception, so I question whether that person always knows exactly why and/or is completely honest with themselves about it.

Also - I bet there is a higher incidence of foot fetishists among podiatrists than the general population (with most not acting on it in their professional lives), but perhaps I am too cynical....

 

[Emily's Cat]

Good point - and analogy. I guess my only rejoinder is that I think it's often not so clear cut- and there may multiple things going on in the same person ( suspect every TW has spent some time thinking sexual thoughts about themselves as a woman). People also have a great capacity for self-deception, so I question whether that person always knows exactly why and/or is completely honest with themselves about it.

Sure, there's bound to be some variation.

But there are also a shocking number of transwomen posting on line about their sexual arousal, about constantly feeling up their boobs, about how sexy it is to wear female undergarments and how they just have to take a break and head to the (ladies) loo to "take care of something".

I'm perfectly willing to grant a range of gray in there... but there also seems to be an unapologetic and very vocal group who are firewalled at the black end of the range.

I don't want to be forced to accommodate that. I don't think I should be forced to accommodate that. I don't think that any woman (or man if it ever came up) should be told that they have no right NOT to be ogled by the opposite sex or have no right NOT to be exposed to the genitals of the opposite sex without their consent.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Sure, there's bound to be some variation.

But there are also a shocking number of transwomen posting on line about their sexual arousal, about constantly feeling up their boobs, about how sexy it is to wear female undergarments and how they just have to take a break and head to the (ladies) loo to "take care of something".

For sure - I saw a lot of that when I did a dive into the issues last year. I wish I could say I was surprised.... Of course the irony being that a lot of these TW are distinctly male-like in their overt sexuality and propensity to threaten violence (to "TERFs").