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

[Ziggurat]

Doesn't mean we can't get rid of segregationist policies.

Noting sex on a birth certificate doesn't produce segregationist policies, and getting rid of it won't help eliminate those policies (whatever ones you're referring to).

But I don't think you even grasp the full insanity of what they were claiming.

"This article, however, shows that the registration of gender/sex does something else than record naturally given sex differences in bodies; it actually produces and shapes bodies to develop in a way conformant with understandings of sexual dimorphism."​

Yeah, no.

It's true that intersex conditions have often been handled poorly. That's the one valid point they have. But those are an edge case. And you can treat edge cases on a case-by-case basis. Our ability to do that well doesn't hinge upon not recording the sex of the 99.9% (or whatever it is) of people who are not born with intersex conditions. And ceasing to record that will not improve the prospects of people born with intersex conditions either. This is pure magical thinking.

 

[Collin237]

I don't see anything wrong with arguing about such things, it's just not centering the people who've traditionally been put down on account of their sex.

That's all you see wrong with those articles?

 

[Earthborn]

Noting sex on a birth certificate doesn't produce segregationist policies,

It is a segregationist policy. And it makes it possible for the government to come up with discriminatory policies.

But I don't think you even grasp the full insanity of what they were claiming.

I am familiar with this sort of feminist writing. I am not going to pay 39 euros to see what the exact reasoning in this article is, but I guess it likely argues that registering a child as a particular sex is going to influence how it going to be treated, and that in turn has some effect on how their bodies develop; which may not be entirely wrong but not as big an influence as the article's summary makes it sound (to those not familliar with this sort of feminist writing).

Our ability to do that well doesn't hinge upon not recording the sex of the 99.9% (or whatever it is) of people who are not born with intersex conditions.

Recording sex on official government documents still makes it possible to discriminate 100% of people.

And ceasing to record that will not improve the prospects of people born with intersex conditions either.

Intersex individuals are more likely not-intersex individuals to want to transition regardless of how well their assigned sex matches their biological sex. Not having to go through the whole rigamarole of having to change their birth certificates improves their conditions.

 

[xjx388]

It is a segregationist policy. And it makes it possible for the government to come up with discriminatory policies.

I'm not sure how, exactly, that's supposed to work.

I am familiar with this sort of feminist writing. I am not going to pay 39 euros to see what the exact reasoning in this article is, but I guess it likely argues that registering a child as a particular sex is going to influence how it going to be treated, and that in turn has some effect on how their bodies develop; which may not be entirely wrong but not as big an influence as the article's summary makes it sound (to those not familliar with this sort of feminist writing).

The way a child is treated has nothing to do with what box is checked-off on a vital record and everything to do with the parents and society as a whole. Their bodies develop the same regardless of what is on a form. There is no connection between a checked-off box and the rearing of a child. Eliminating the sex on a birth certificate won't change diddly-squat in child development.

Recording sex on official government documents still makes it possible to discriminate 100% of people.

I can't think of any circumstance in which this is true. Discrimination happens because of people's perceptions of sex; no one is checking the birth certificate to see if they should discriminate or not.

You don't eliminate discrimination by removing a box from a form. You eliminate it, fundamentally, by changing hearts and minds. Which means we will never truly eliminate it as long as there exist people who perceive women as less capable for whatever spurious reason.

 

[Sherkeu]

nm wrong thread!

 

[theprestige]

It is a segregationist policy. And it makes it possible for the government to come up with discriminatory policies.

When was the last time a western government came up with a discriminatory policy based on sex assignment?

The trend for the past hundred years and more has been overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. Unless you're talking about things like Title IX.

 

[d4m10n]

Doesn't mean we can't get rid of segregationist policies.

Which segregationist policies would you abolish?

I'd be interested in hearing anyone and everyone answer this question.

Personally, I'm okay with privately operated leagues and clubs which cater to only one sex. I'm also okay with subreddits (and the like) doing the same, though I'd hesitate to join one myself.

I would probably "abolish" sex-segregation in most restrooms and changing rooms in favor of (more expensive) new builds which cater to individual users, examples of which I've provided upthread, but by abolish here really I mean that I'd like to see a gradual cultural shift towards these solutions rather than a sudden top-down mandate.

Are there any cases I forgot to address? Probably. [emoji14]

 

[caveman1917]

The evidence is the evidence Elaedith considers suspect; the fact that the vast majority of those who received puberty blockers persist and go on taking cross-sex hormones later in life.

That's not evidence. An observation which is expected under both hypotheses does not discriminate between those hypotheses. Again, the evidence would be in the changed outcome distribution of the group which is not receiving puberty blockers. A controlled trial would of course even be better.

It is more that 70 confused gay kids and 25 trans kids not receiving puberty blockers and only 5 trans kids who do.

Well until there's some evidence for this claim I'm sticking with the 70-30 distribution based on symptom intensity, which seems to be the best selection method for which there is evidence. Putting 70 confused gay kids through conversion therapy for every 30 trans kids who may or may not be helped does not sound like adequate medical practice to me.

 

[Olmstead]

In the future, doctors will remove a newborn's genitals upon birth without telling parents about the sex. The genitals will be kept on ice until the child reaches puberty age and decides whether they're a boy or a girl.

 

[theprestige]

King Missile saw it coming.

 

[Collin237]

It would definitely be a good start!

What does a birth certificate in The Netherlands consist of?

 

[xjx388]

Before my daughter had her kids, she insisted that she wasn't going to force a gender on her kids. I didn't understand what this meant in practical terms. We had some disagreements about it, centered around my inability to understand what exactly she was talking about. She told us we forced a gender on her and she was going to do everything the exact opposite. I don't know how my wife and I forced a gender on her other than when she was a baby, buying her clothes from the girls section. She never expressed any thoughts that she wasn't a girl, never said, I don't want to wear girls clothes -in fact, she was very much a girl to every appearance, so I couldn't (still don't) comprehend what the hell she means by "you forced a gender on me."

In any case, none of that came to pass. She had a gender reveal party, for starters. Once she knew her first kid was a female, it was just natural to think of her as, "her little girl." I wanted so much to tell my daughter, "So I guess all that gender-neutral crap is out the window, huh? How does it feel to force a gender on your female offspring?" But I didn't and I won't. There's already enough distance between us and I don't want to make things worse.

 

[Sherkeu]

Before my daughter had her kids, she insisted that she wasn't going to force a gender on her kids. I didn't understand what this meant in practical terms. We had some disagreements about it, centered around my inability to understand what exactly she was talking about. She told us we forced a gender on her and she was going to do everything the exact opposite. I don't know how my wife and I forced a gender on her other than when she was a baby, buying her clothes from the girls section. She never expressed any thoughts that she wasn't a girl, never said, I don't want to wear girls clothes -in fact, she was very much a girl to every appearance, so I couldn't (still don't) comprehend what the hell she means by "you forced a gender on me."

In any case, none of that came to pass. She had a gender reveal party, for starters. Once she knew her first kid was a female, it was just natural to think of her as, "her little girl." I wanted so much to tell my daughter, "So I guess all that gender-neutral crap is out the window, huh? How does it feel to force a gender on your female offspring?" But I didn't and I won't. There's already enough distance between us and I don't want to make things worse.

That's funny.

Funnier if the name she chose was a Bella or Emily vs Ryan, Skylar, or Quinn.

Speaking of which, kids are not concerned with what is on their official government document. Unless someone tells them about it, a pre-teen won't even know about that M or F. But the names? The name a parent gives is a big part of their identity and how others may view them.

Maybe we should not name kids? After all, it is one of the first things a transgender kid wants to change. Just give all babies neutral symbols or letters and numbers (like Musk) and let them decide later.

And having a gender assignment cannot be worse than a gendered name which kids internalize every day. Further, there could be social distress living up to names like Messiah, King, Princess, Chastity or La'-a ( 'Ladasha') which affect far more kids nowadays.

 

[xjx388]

That's funny.

Funnier if the name she chose was a Bella or Emily vs Ryan, Skylar, or Quinn.

Speaking of which, kids are not concerned with what is on their official government document. Unless someone tells them about it, a pre-teen won't even know about that M or F. But the names? The name a parent gives is a big part of their identity and how others may view them.

Maybe we should not name kids? After all, it is one of the first things a transgender kid wants to change. Just give all babies neutral symbols or letters and numbers (like Musk) and let them decide later.

And having a gender assignment cannot be worse than a gendered name which kids internalize every day. Further, there could be social distress living up to names like Messiah, King, Princess, Chastity or La'-a ( 'Ladasha') which affect far more kids nowadays.

The name choice is very interesting and is probably a nod to non-traditional gender roles: Arya. My grandson was named to honor her favorite actor: Eliot Page (transgender actor who was finally known as Ellen Page, in case that isn’t known).

She is definitely an ally of the LGBTQ+ community and I’m proud of her for that. It’s just striking how, in actual practice, it wasn’t so easy for her avoid the normal thing most parents do. She definitely isn’t raising them as non-gendered. She isn’t doing anything fundamentally different from what we did.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is a segregationist policy. And it makes it possible for the government to come up with discriminatory policies.

I am familiar with this sort of feminist writing. I am not going to pay 39 euros to see what the exact reasoning in this article is, but I guess it likely argues that registering a child as a particular sex is going to influence how it going to be treated, and that in turn has some effect on how their bodies develop; which may not be entirely wrong but not as big an influence as the article's summary makes it sound (to those not familliar with this sort of feminist writing).

Predictable sweeping (and baying) dismissals from the peanut gallery. Plus ca change.

I take the same line as you, and (like you) I am absolutely not dismissive of the notion that there's some degree of feedback loop between biological sex, physical characteristics, and gender (and gender expectations).

Here is an absolutely true story which I think happens to illustrate the concept quite well:

When I was around 14, an RAF colleague of my father's had a daughter named Nicola who was about a year or so older than me. We kids spent quite a lot of our summer holidays together (the RAF base we were at was at the far end of North Wales), much of it revolving round a lake where we could use canoes and windsurf boards, and swim.

I found out almost immediately that even though I was above-average in things like strength and swimming speed for my age, Nicola could beat me hands down. I soon learned that she was a county-level swimmer, and regularly trained multiple hours per day, in and out of the pool.

Anyway, that summer came and went, and I thought no more of her. And her father was posted to another base over the next winter, so I never saw her again. But about a year later, my mother (who'd kept in touch with the parents, who were my parents' friends) asked me, a propos of nothing, what I'd thought about Nicola and particularly her body shape. Slightly weirded out by the question, I replied that I'd thought Nicola's body shape was kind of average, but obviously athletic.

My mother then revealed the reason for her question. It turns out that Nicola's school headmistress had contacted her mother, to say that they (the school staff) were trying to turn Nicola away from her swimming and swimming training..... because (and I swear this is the absolute truth) they were worried that Nicola's torso, shoulders and neck were becoming "unladylike" and they were concerned that this might become a more permanent feature of her anatomy and might limit her life chances as a woman.


So yes: I do think that there's a certain feasibility to the notion of a person's biological sex "label" creating a direct and/or indirect influence upon their physiology and anatomy as they grow up.

 

[theprestige]

But your anecdote refutes that notion. Here was a socialized woman developing a masculine physique. That's the opposite of the alleged feedback loop.

And really, it's just her building up muscle mass through regular exercise.

It's not like male becomes female if you pretend really hard not to notice their penis.

 

[LondonJohn]

But your anecdote refutes that notion. Here was a socialized woman developing a masculine physique. That's the opposite of the alleged feedback loop.

And really, it's just her building up muscle mass through regular exercise.

It's not like male becomes female if you pretend really hard not to notice their penis.

No, the point is that she was pressurised (successfully, as I recall) not to develop a masculine physique - effectively to reverse the anatomical changes until she became "more ladylike".

And the pressure came from those who were not only authority figures to her, but who were also charged with nurturing and safeguarding her while she was away from her parents at boarding school.

 

[p0lka]

It'll be interesting to see what the anachronisms turn out to be, though. What's your prediction? Will the idea that transwomen are biologically female stand the test of time? Or will future generations point back at it and laugh?

That's a wee bit of a false dichotomy there, but what I hope is that future historians will look back and ponder why gender became such an issue, because in their present it's not.

 

[theprestige]

No, the point is that she was pressurised (successfully, as I recall) not to develop a masculine physique - effectively to reverse the anatomical changes until she became "more ladylike".

And the pressure came from those who were not only authority figures to her, but who were also charged with nurturing and safeguarding her while she was away from her parents at boarding school.

That's not even remotely related to what's being claimed in the paper we were talking about. The abstract alleges a feedback loop between social pressure and biological sex.

 

[theprestige]

That's a wee bit of a false dichotomy there, but what I hope is that future historians will look back and ponder why gender became such an issue, because in their present it's not.

I'm pretty sure that as long as there's a biological difference between the two sexes, there's going to be social constructs of gender based on those differences.

Also, our social constructs of gender won't be anachronisms to future generations, any more than feudalism is an anachronism today. Now, if you were to try to establish a feudal society today, that would be a little bit anachronistic. Charlemagne establishing one in 768 isn't anachronistic at all, even from our perspective.