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

[Meadmaker]

I reject this entire line of discussion. We've been over this repeatedly. We all know where we stand. We all know that it's a trivial problem to overcome, for anyone actually interested in moving the discussion forward. Nobody is confused about what you're trying to say unless they want to be confused. Nobody is getting blocked by this unless they want to be blocked by this.

As far as I'm concerned, the only real question(s) left are the most important ones: What rights, for who, and why?

Half the reason we can't have a productive discussion is because ST, LJ, et al. refuse to discuss these few remaining questions.

The other half of the reason is, quite frankly, silly buggers. xjx just has to say "not all penises" every. single. time. EC just has to re-defend her shorthand every. single. time. You and Distracted have to re-hash this same tired point every couple days.

You want to have a productive discussion? Move on. Both LJ and ST have said they think there's productive discussion to be had about rights. So hold them to it. Press them, not each other, to discuss something substantive. Please. I'm begging you. Up your game.

One possible result of opting into the TRA vocabulary could have been that we quit arguing over the vocabulary.

Of course, that would assume that people were willing to address the substance of the issue.


ETA: But I agree.

As far as I'm concerned, the only real question(s) left are the most important ones: What rights, for who, and why?

Which is why, having adopted the vocabulary, I immediately used the vocabulary as a way of emphasizing, with no confusion, that sports leagues should be segregated by sex, not by gender. The only reason that there is even any room for discussion on that point is this confusing term of allowing the word "woman" to be used for gender instead of for sex. Sports should be segregated by sex, so whatever term you use for sex, I am currently using "male" and "female", then the sports leagues should use that name.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am highly skeptical of this claim. There is a set of characteristics, mannerisms, and other forms of self-presentation which are expected of females, and another distinctly different set expected of males. (There is a much larger set expected of both males and females, but let's put that to one side for now.) To call one set "masculine" and another "feminine" is to simply put labels on what we've observed in the world.

I disagree. A friend of mine has the condition known as complete androgen insensitivity syndrome^WP which means she has always been perceived as phenotypically female despite having a handful of male characteristics (including genotype). There is no easy way to say she is either male or female, IMO.

My understanding is that CAIS means that your friend is female. They do not have sperm producing organs. The complete failure of the SRY receptor means that as a fetus they were never prompted for the ovarian stem cells to develop into testes instead. So by the universal definition of biology, they are "of the sex that produces large immobile gametes". Although also, very likely sterile.

That's part of why Rolfe's human-specific definition was that male humans are XY genes AND functional SRY receptor.

 

[d4m10n]

The biological essentialism is when people assume the observable reality of sexual dichotomy must have profound societal and political implications overriding all other concerns.

Ever heard of Roe v. Wade^WP? Sometimes biology puts a burden on just one sex, and society/politicians have to acknowledge and adjust accordingly.

 

[d4m10n]

My understanding is that CAIS means that your friend is female. They do not have sperm producing organs. The complete failure of the SRY receptor means that as a fetus they were never prompted for the ovarian stem cells to develop into testes instead.

From the relevant wiki:

The gonads in these women are not ovaries, but instead, are testes; during the embryonic stage of development, testes form in an androgen-independent process that occurs due to the influence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Stereotypes do have some basis in observation -speaking as a Mexican-American: yes, we do kinda like rice beans and piñatas- but it’s when we take the stereotypes as universal truths that they become problematic.

The big question is: is a behavior masculine or feminine because there’s some innate sexual component to behavior or because the society and cultural expectations shape behavior?

ETA: Take the child of a long line of Mexicans and have them raised in a Japanese household without any exposure to Mexican culture and I doubt the kid would have indescribable cravings for tortillas, beans and hitting piñatas.

A Korean friend of mine married a male human of Japanese descent. The male human of Japanese descent, however, was third generation Canadian. They disliked sushi, and couldn't stand sake, and didn't speak a single word of Japanese.

I'm about as pale as they come (surpassed only by red-headed scots who've never actually seen sunlight), but I spent my formative years in the southwest, and beans and tortillas are staple food items in my house.

I also hate pink, don't like dresses or skirts, refuse to wear heels, don't wear make-up, despise shopping, have no patience for gossip, and like to go rock-crawling with my nifty RC 6X6. My spouse is male, and they paint their toenails sparkly colors on a regular basis, and they have a whole collection of flashlights, knives, guns, and tools that are rainbow anodized.

My position, which I don't think has been unclear is: **** sex-based stereotypes.

 

[Emily's Cat]

From the relevant wiki:

I did not know that, I was misinformed.

 

[d4m10n]

Stereotypes do have some basis in observation -speaking as a Mexican-American: yes, we do kinda like rice beans and piñatas- but it’s when we take the stereotypes as universal truths that they become problematic.

Speaking as a Puerto-Rican American, every last one of us loves plantains.

The big question is: is a behavior masculine or feminine because there’s some innate sexual component to behavior or because the society and cultural expectations shape behavior?

Por qué no los dos?

 

[Ziggurat]

Now I feel like I need to go get a concealed penis permit so I can protect myself...

A severed penis probably would be an effective deterrent to rapists.

 

[TomB]

"masculine" and "feminine" are not identities, they are adjectives. If anything in this conversation is a "social construct" it is those. And they are, rightly, the terms that already exist to describe the characteristics typically associated associated with gender. however, using the adjective that is typically associated with a particular gender as the definition of the gender is a severe case of putting the cart before the horse.

I find it hard to believe that kind of deliberate and obvious obfuscation is not an attempt to cover an attempt to pull an Orwell.

Masculine and feminine are adjectives that describe a person's identity. Or at least a part of it. I have an identity that I would describe as masculine, although I don't think about it a lot because there is no incongruity between that and my physical body. It's not the only part of my identity, but it is there.

I think it is quite possible that this part of a person's identity does not match with their physical body. I also feel it's quite likely that that disconnect is at least partly biological (genetic) in origin. It is not contradictory that someone could have a male biological sex and a female biological gender. But we have no empirical way to measure gender. There is no way to know if the part of my identity that is gender is the same as (or different than) that of any other man (cis or trans).

As for "newspeak"...
Gender is a convenient term to use for that portion of someone's identity. Unfortunately, using it requires decoupling it from sex. But I'm a biologist and I can handle the fact that words mean different things in context. (I'm thinking of the word "Theory"). It doesn't bother me. What I consider important is knowing what other people mean within context.

I can understand why trans-women want to call themselves women and trans-men want to call themselves men. Putting the prefix before either of those separates them as something "other." I also understand why some women take issue with that, because it implies a commonality of experience that they feel is not present.

I don't consider the semantics that important, myself, as long as I can communicate. The labels and terms don't really have anything to do with how I treat or view someone. Trans-people are valid and there is nothing wrong with their identity. They are entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

But none of that really answers questions about how to handle cases where interests (which some think are rights) come into conflict. LondonJohn and others note that if legislation passes protecting transgender rights that it will be illegal to discriminate by gender. But we already have laws making it illegal to discriminate by sex. What happens when they come into conflict? What constitutes discrimination? Aren't segregated spaces inherently discriminatory anyway? Whether by sex or gender.

Maybe some of these things we are arguing about aren't really "rights" but rather privileges. For example, I have no "right" to use the restroom at McDonald's. That's a privilege granted to customers. In theory, If I walked in off the street, the employees could deny me access. (Though that is unlikely to happen.) It can't be a "right" if I can be denied access, can it?

I think that we will eventually end up with more private and individualized unisex facilities. Not overnight. It's just not feasible overnight. But eventually. One day someone will tell their grandkids about how they had rooms where all the women (or men) got naked, showered and changed clothes together. And the grandkids will react with the same incredulity that more current generations have when told that once upon a time, all the boys swam naked in high school gym class.

But that's not now.

 

[TomB]

Now if you are female, describe yourself as a woman, and use female pronouns, you are stating that you identify as feminine (and since gender is often defined as socially constructed roles, that you accept the feminine role). This return to saying that women who are not feminine are not women and men who are not masculine are not men is apparently 'progressive'.

If gender (or gender roles) are socially constructed, can they be deconstructed?

JoeMorgue has said many times that gender does not change how he views or treats people. Everyone says that everyone should be treated the same. male/female, man woman, black/white? Treat everyone the same. But if everyone is viewed the same, then what does it mean to treat someone as a man or as a woman?

Suppose that dress and hairstyle differences between men and women disappeared. And names, career expectations, etc. Is that a genderless society? Obviously, sex is still there, but is gender gone? And if gender is gone, what does that say about gendered spaces? Would they be needed? And if they are no longer needed, would there not still be a need for sex-segregated spaces, sports leagues etc?

 

[TomB]

A severed penis probably would be an effective deterrent to rapists.

Worn on a chain around the neck as a warning?
Aye

 

[theprestige]

If gender (or gender roles) are socially constructed, can they be deconstructed?

JoeMorgue has said many times that gender does not change how he views or treats people. Everyone says that everyone should be treated the same. male/female, man woman, black/white? Treat everyone the same. But if everyone is viewed the same, then what does it mean to treat someone as a man or as a woman?

Suppose that dress and hairstyle differences between men and women disappeared. And names, career expectations, etc. Is that a genderless society? Obviously, sex is still there, but is gender gone? And if gender is gone, what does that say about gendered spaces? Would they be needed? And if they are no longer needed, would there not still be a need for sex-segregated spaces, sports leagues etc?

Which is why I think the real issue is transsexuality, and rights for transsexuals.

 

[Belz...]

The vast majority of anyone speaking on the issue is not actually trans, given they are such a small portion of the population. Considering the last openly trans contributor was met with a torrent of personal attacks and MA breaking behavior, I trust you understand why some may be reticent to expose themselves to the slings and barbs of overt hostility of bigotry.

Leaving you to speak on their behalf and assuring us that you know exactly what you're talking about, which to be honest is not very reassuring.

What do actual trans people i.e. people with gender dysphoria, actually say?

 

[Belz...]

Well, there's always the option of the overtly bigoted route

Of course, since the only options are PRECISELY your position or utter bigotry.

The hubris required to believe this is pretty damned staggering.

 

[Belz...]

I'm hoping that the future historians would disagree.

I don't know that seems pretty damned fundamental.

 

[Belz...]

Masculine and feminine are adjectives that describe a person's identity.

Then what do we mean by "identity". I always understood it to be how someone sees themselves. The adjectives mentioned here are about behaviour observable by others.

Worn on a chain around the neck as a warning?
Aye

Strange minds think alike, I see.

 

[xjx388]

If gender (or gender roles) are socially constructed, can they be deconstructed?

JoeMorgue has said many times that gender does not change how he views or treats people. Everyone says that everyone should be treated the same. male/female, man woman, black/white? Treat everyone the same. But if everyone is viewed the same, then what does it mean to treat someone as a man or as a woman?

Suppose that dress and hairstyle differences between men and women disappeared. And names, career expectations, etc. Is that a genderless society? Obviously, sex is still there, but is gender gone? And if gender is gone, what does that say about gendered spaces? Would they be needed? And if they are no longer needed, would there not still be a need for sex-segregated spaces, sports leagues etc?

Well...humans are animals. There is a certain amount of instinct to be attractive to potential sex partners. That’s where all of this gets a little murky. Humans are more complicated than the rest of the animal kingdom.

I don’t really worry about all that complication. It’s mostly psychological. I’m ok with men who want to be women or whatever variety of sexual expression that exists in human behavior. You do you and be happy. I will try to make things as comfortable for you as possible without making other people unduly uncomfortable.

But really, we -as a society- need to decide how we are going to accommodate this expression. The solution, in my view, isn’t to mix sexes in the same open facilities or allow male bodies to compete against female bodies in sports. I’ve given my reasoning in other posts.

At this point, without persuasive arguments otherwise, I’d err on the side of segregation by sex in most cases. But I’m open. I don’t think I’m weird in this.

Convince me and others like me. That’s fundamentally the task at hand. You won’t convince me by simply calling me a bigot. You won’t convince me with magical thinking. As others have said, elucidate the rights that trans gender people should have that they currently don’t and let’s have a discussion. Present evidence.

 

[d4m10n]

Convince me and others like me. That’s fundamentally the task at hand. You won’t convince me by simply calling me a bigot.

If LJ & ST have another move (perhaps one rooted in an argument from shared values) I'd be fascinated to see it.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know that seems pretty damned fundamental.

Seems like a really weird position to stake out. Why is it assumed a priori that having social constructs based on significant biological differences are a bad thing?

 

[theprestige]

Then what do we mean by "identity". I always understood it to be how someone sees themselves. The adjectives mentioned here are about behaviour observable by others.



Strange minds think alike, I see.

Well, some kinds of identity are all about how others identify you. You driver's license is an identity, but it's not how you see yourself. It's how the state sees you.

Lots of celebrities make a career of selling an identity to the public. How Stephanie Germanotta sees herself is important to Stephanie Germanotta. But how the public sees Lady Gaga is what pays the bills.

In the bedroom, your partner's sexual attraction to you has absolutely nothing to do with how you identify yourself. It's entirely how they identify you that determines their degree of arousal.