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

[Earthborn]

Photo in article. "That's a man, baby!"

Among heavy-weight weightlifting women athletes, she is not the most mannish looking.

Except it's only so because some have tried to change the meaning of the word.

They (feminists in the 1960s) changed the meaning of the word when the word had long fallen out of common use, and was a very obscure and old-fashioned term used primarily to refer to grammatical "gender".

 

[Aber]

Sure... although it's still a highly questionable metric that IOC uses. Transwomen are required to have a testosterone level of no more than 10 nmol/L.

The normal range for adult males is 9.2 nmol/L to 31.8 nmol/L. The normal range for adult females is 0.3 and 2.4 nmol/L.

So the IOC's guideline is for transwomen to have a testosterone level that is no more than 4 times that of the high range for females.

Visually

https://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/T-Graph.pdf

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't believe it's possible for a male bodied athlete to sincerely believe they can compete fairly with females

I think it's entirely possible. A large number of beliefs are not based on reality in any way whatsoever. And for a person whose entire identity is dependent on other people validating their internal feelings about themself, I can see that they might truly believe that they are entitled to compete with the people that they want other people to see them as, regardless of reality.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Visually

https://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/T-Graph.pdf

That's a pretty compelling visual.

 

[theprestige]

Don't let me extend this into a straw man, so if I've got you wrong definitely say it better--but it sounds like you're supposing there's no point to changing one's gender identity unless there are segregated activities?

Sort of. Please note that what I'm saying is a very brief sum-up of a ton of discussion I've been having over the six instalments of this thread. There's a lot of contextual nuance that's missing from these summaries, but which were an important part of how I reached these conclusions. I'm not going to rehash all of that here.

I'm not saying there's no point. The point, like the gender role, is whatever you think it is. What I'm saying is there's no practical meaning to it for anyone else, other than crossing sex-segregation boundaries.

The question I have for you - for anyone and everyone participating in this thread, actually - is this: What does it mean, to identify as a woman, if not gaining access to sex-segregated female spaces and activities?

Because everywhere the issue of gender identity actually comes up, as a matter of public policy, it's in terms of sexual identity. Nobody bats an eye at a man in a dress anymore. Or if they do, it's clear what side of history they're on: The wrong, deprecated, bigoted, and increasingly marginalized side of history. Where people have concerns is when there's a man in the women's locker room, or a man in the women's sports league. Which is to say, where there's a male claiming a female identity and entitlement to female spaces.

 

[theprestige]

Among heavy-weight weightlifting women athletes, she is not the most mannish looking.

She is, however, the most mannish. But "most" is the wrong word, since mannishness-womanishness isn't a continuum, it's a quantum binary. To be accurate, we'd say she's (one of) the only mannish one(s).

Or one of the only male ones, if we want to get all semantical-quibbly about it. Which is really what we're talking about here: Whatever her gender identity, whatever pronouns she wants us to use, she's male. Do we think male athletes competing with female athletes is a good solution to the problem of acknowledging and honoring their gender self-identity?

I don't think it is.

Do you think it is?

 

[Ziggurat]

Don't let me extend this into a straw man, so if I've got you wrong definitely say it better--but it sounds like you're supposing there's no point to changing one's gender identity unless there are segregated activities?

I can't speak for theprestige, but for my part I would say it's not segregated activities per se, but rather different treatment for different genders. Segregated activities are certainly part of that, but it's not the only way genders can be treated differently. Singles bars aren't segregated, but women and men at a singles bar don't get treated the same way.

And it seems rather axiomatically true that there's no point in changing your gender if genders aren't treated differently.

 

[Belz...]

They (feminists in the 1960s) changed the meaning of the word when the word had long fallen out of common use, and was a very obscure and old-fashioned term used primarily to refer to grammatical "gender".

I don't know where you got that, but said word was in use the entire time I was alive until everyone pretended it meant something else in the 2010s.

 

[Graham2001]

To quote one George Galloway in an interview for of all things Spiked!

The Labour Party’s infatuation with this issue truly beggars belief. The number of people involved in trans issues must be vanishingly small, yet Labour has embraced what I call trans mania with so much gusto.



It is emblematic of Labour’s wider departure from the real world. A man cannot become a woman simply by declaring himself to be so. This nonsense is a massive incentive for working-class people in particular to distance themselves from the party. Labour doesn’t really like the British people very much. And the British people are now reciprocating.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/06/24/labour-has-ignored-its-voters-it-is-now-paying-the-price/


Is he in trouble now...

 

[gnome]

Sort of. Please note that what I'm saying is a very brief sum-up of a ton of discussion I've been having over the six instalments of this thread. There's a lot of contextual nuance that's missing from these summaries, but which were an important part of how I reached these conclusions. I'm not going to rehash all of that here.

I'm not saying there's no point. The point, like the gender role, is whatever you think it is. What I'm saying is there's no practical meaning to it for anyone else, other than crossing sex-segregation boundaries.

The question I have for you - for anyone and everyone participating in this thread, actually - is this: What does it mean, to identify as a woman, if not gaining access to sex-segregated female spaces and activities?

Because everywhere the issue of gender identity actually comes up, as a matter of public policy, it's in terms of sexual identity. Nobody bats an eye at a man in a dress anymore. Or if they do, it's clear what side of history they're on: The wrong, deprecated, bigoted, and increasingly marginalized side of history. Where people have concerns is when there's a man in the women's locker room, or a man in the women's sports league. Which is to say, where there's a male claiming a female identity and entitlement to female spaces.

I think it means more than rethinking those boundaries. I propose that the reason matters of public policy primarily concern themselves with segregated spaces and activities, is because those are the only matters that there is a state interest in, a mandate to enforce in one way or another.

The goals of living as a different gender extend to matters beyond legalities and policies, just that this is the footprint that authority has on the matter.

 

[theprestige]

And it seems rather axiomatically true that there's no point in changing your gender if genders aren't treated differently.

I go a bit further than this, even: "Gender" as a discriminating social construct is on its way out.

What does it mean to identify as a woman (gender)?

Does it mean you should get paid 70 cents on the dollar for the same work? No.

Does it mean your date should pay for your dinner? No.

Does it mean you have to wear dresses, and keep house, and raise kids? No.

Does it mean you can't be CEO, or chair a corporation board, or hold high public office? No.

No, the only practical effect, for others, of identifying as a woman is when it's identifying as female for the purpose of access to female spaces.

Zig mentions the purpose of being treated as female. I hadn't considered treatment, but I had considered the whole category of interactions I call "the bedroom". While the bedroom isn't a sex-segregated space, it is a sex-polarized space. And in the bedroom, your self-identity is irrelevant. Your partner's sexual attraction to you is based entirely on how they identify you. Whatever they're attracted to, they have to see it in you. You can't just tell them it's there and expect them to get aroused.

 

[theprestige]

I think it means more than rethinking those boundaries. I propose that the reason matters of public policy primarily concern themselves with segregated spaces and activities, is because those are the only matters that there is a state interest in, a mandate to enforce in one way or another.

The goals of living as a different gender extend to matters beyond legalities and policies, just that this is the footprint that authority has on the matter.

WHAT DOES LIVING AS A DIFFERENT GENDER MEAN?

Sorry for the shouting, but I really just want an answer to that question, that doesn't involve transsexuality. Do you have such an answer? If so, what is it?

 

[Olmstead]

WHAT DOES LIVING AS A DIFFERENT GENDER MEAN?

Sorry for the shouting, but I really just want an answer to that question, that doesn't involve transsexuality. Do you have such an answer? If so, what is it?

I'm reminded of a scene from the Ranma 1/2 anime. The show is about a boy who has been cursed to turn into a girl whenever he's soaked by cold water. At one point, he goes into a café as a girl and orders a ridiculously fancy dessert, and he's extremely excited about it. He explains that he could never order a dessert like that as a boy because it's too girly, but now that he's a girl, he can finally try it.

 

[gnome]

WHAT DOES LIVING AS A DIFFERENT GENDER MEAN?

Sorry for the shouting, but I really just want an answer to that question, that doesn't involve transsexuality. Do you have such an answer? If so, what is it?

I have my own impression of an answer, but I would rather leave that to someone closer to the experience, if such a voice is available here.

What I'm comfortable presuming is that rethinking traditional policy boundaries is something most people want because it affects their lives, as opposed to concluding that they've made a gender identity because they desire to subvert those boundaries. I'm not at all convinced the tail is wagging the dog here.

 

[d4m10n]

Does it mean you should get paid 70 cents on the dollar for the same work?

No, but it means you likely will.

https://www.macleans.ca/society/for-transgender-women-the-pay-equity-gap-is-even-wider/

 

[Emily's Cat]

interesting that 'fairness' means that it would be unfair for no women to compete at the Olympics but perfectly fair for no transwomen to compete at the Olympics.

I don't think 'fairness' is really their aim at all.

Would it be fair for no females to compete at the Olympics? How do you define fairness in the context of sports?

 

[theprestige]

I have my own impression of an answer, but I would rather leave that to someone closer to the experience, if such a voice is available here.

Such a voice is available here. Boudicca, a (trans)woman, has asserted in this thread that living as a woman means, for her, being seen and accepted as biologically female.

As far as I know, nobody in this thread, cis or trans, has come up with any answer that doesn't involve transsexuality.

Also, I think its probably in your best interest to give your own answer. After all, you will be called upon to treat a transwoman as a woman from time to time. You will need to have some idea in your mind of what that means and whether you're doing it.

What I'm comfortable presuming is that rethinking traditional policy boundaries is something most people want because it affects their lives, as opposed to concluding that they've made a gender identity because they desire to subvert those boundaries. I'm not at all convinced the tail is wagging the dog here.

This is exactly my starting assumption. Everything after it is your invention, and nothing to do with my premises, reasoning, or conclusion.

I simply assume that the only concrete, practical effect of transgender identity, is a transsexual effect in public policy.

This is the second or third time I've told you I assume sincerity. Can we at least agree that you won't keep arguing as if I assume otherwise?

 

[theprestige]

No, but it means you likely will.

https://www.macleans.ca/society/for-transgender-women-the-pay-equity-gap-is-even-wider/

Oof. That sucks.

However, it's not exactly what I was talking about. That's not a case of transsexuals being paid less for the same work. That's a case of transsexuals getting less work in the first place.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Zig mentions the purpose of being treated as female. I hadn't considered treatment..

I, and a lot of other females, have given a LOT of thought to how we get treated as females. And a great many of us DO NOT LIKE IT.

We do not like being sexualized as soon as we begin developing breasts. We do not like being expected to be nice and polite and collaborative. We do not like being expected to bite our tongues and not be too loud at work. We do not like being portrayed as weak willed and needy. We do not like being frequently portrayed in pornography as a vessel for receiving men's desires, subjected to their whims and their will, degraded and abused for their eroticization. We do not like people assuming that we must be a secretary rather than an actuary, a nurse rather than a doctor, a teacher rather than a professor. We do not like that female politicians get media coverage of their outfits as a running part of their presence.

And a great many of us do not like that our existence is being treated as a costume, a caricature based on the very most confining and limited stereotypes, and that this view of being female is being reinforced and normalized as 'gender identity'.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I have my own impression of an answer, but I would rather leave that to someone closer to the experience, if such a voice is available here.

What I'm comfortable presuming is that rethinking traditional policy boundaries is something most people want because it affects their lives, as opposed to concluding that they've made a gender identity because they desire to subvert those boundaries. I'm not at all convinced the tail is wagging the dog here.

Perhaps it's insensitive of me... I can think of many reasons why male people might want to re-think sex-based boundaries... but not many reasons why female people might want those boundaries re-thought.