Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Louden Wilde]

Sex is also variable. There are configurations of chromosomes like XXY, XXX, X, XYY, and so forth. And other species use completely different non-XY sex-determining systems.

Here's a good video I watched recently explaining it: https://youtu.be/of7vrIIcTa0

Once again the platypus is a freak.

That's true (that there are a small number of people with alternate sex chromosome arrangements), but you're conflating deleterious (harmful) mutants with natural variation. In humans (and most eutherian mammals) those alternate configurations cause other health issues. Note that you can find harmful mutations that eliminate pretty much any human characteristic.

There are a few rodent species that lack a Y chrom, but otherwise they show similar sexual development. Since a definition of sex has to work in a comparative/historical context (since it's clear it's the same process), we use gamete type/organization of the body around producing that gamete as a definition

If a person is fertile at any point in their life, it's because they are able to produce oocytes or sperm. If not, they are not relevant to a definition of sex.
Here's a more long-winded version of the definition I and many biologists use:
Sex is a biological concept. Asexual reproduction (cloning) is routine in microorganisms and some plants, but most vertebrates and all mammals have 2 distinct sexes. Even single-cell organisms have “mating types” to facilitate sexual reproduction. Only cells belonging to different mating types can fuse together to reproduce sexually (2, 3). Sexual reproduction allows for exchange of genetic information and promotes genetic diversity. The classical biological definition of the 2 sexes is that females have ovaries and make larger female gametes (eggs), whereas males have testes and make smaller male gametes (sperm); the 2 gametes fertilize to form the zygote, which has the potential to become a new individual. The advantage of this simple definition is first that it can be applied universally to any species of sexually reproducing organism. Second, it is a bedrock concept of evolution, because selection of traits may differ in the 2 sexes. Thirdly, the definition can be extended to the ovaries and testes, and in this way the categories—female and male—can be applied also to individuals who have gonads but do not make gametes.

Note that there are a lot of differences between the two mammalian gamete types besides size (e.g. many features of chromatin organization and epigenetic marks, stored gene products - the oocyte having all those necessary for the first cell division or two).

So while initiators of sexual development (multiple kinds of genetic and environmental systems) varies across taxa/species, it does not suggest that there are more than two human/mammalian sexes (nor in any vertebrate, I believe)

Apologies to all those who have gotten sick of me reiterating these points. That's how I first became aware of this whole mess - people (whom I didn't realize at the time fancied themselves furthering trans-rights) with a poor understanding of repro/comparative bio posting misleading/false statements.

 

[Louden Wilde]

The list seems to miss certain positions. Is there a middle position between 'should be reinforced' and 'should be discouraged'?

Theoretically, sure. But most of the people engaged in these arguments have a pretty strong opinion as to whether being a woman means acting feminine (according to stereotypes) / that women should act feminine. And as I (and others) have pointed out, once you adopt the untenable position that gender is generally important than sex, you look for ways to downplay sex (e.g. claiming it's a spectrum, that it's changeable, etc. - see my response above to the post attempting to throw doubt on sex-determination in humans).

 

[Meadmaker]

Theoretically, sure. But most of the people engaged in these arguments have a pretty strong opinion as to whether being a woman means acting feminine (according to stereotypes) / that women should act feminine. And as I (and others) have pointed out, once you adopt the untenable position that gender is generally important than sex, you look for ways to downplay sex (e.g. claiming it's a spectrum, that it's changeable, etc. - see my response above to the post attempting to throw doubt on sex-determination in humans).

It seems to me that the existence of unusual variations can be used and misused in all sorts of ways. Realistically, the unusual variations are, well, unusual, and they don't mean a whole lot. It's good to know about them, though, because they can inform the debate, a little.

The existence of genetic oddities is a good counter to traditionalists who would say, literally, that God created two sexes and it's a sin against God and nature to say otherwise. Even people who don't invoke God directly might still insist that everything is cut and dried and it's all nice and tight and binary.

On the other hand, that information can also be misused. Basically, the argument might exist that since an XXY person exists, therefore sex is meaningless. Yes, there are variations and not all people fit into the binary moulds, but almost everyone does. There really are two sexes, plus a very small handful of people who are hard to classify. The existence of one of those people doesn't mean you ought to be able to use the girls' locker room. That decision is governed by other factors, completely independent of the existence of unusual intersexed people or people with unusual genetics.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It seems to me that the existence of unusual variations can be used and misused in all sorts of ways. Realistically, the unusual variations are, well, unusual, and they don't mean a whole lot. It's good to know about them, though, because they can inform the debate, a little.

The existence of genetic oddities is a good counter to traditionalists who would say, literally, that God created two sexes and it's a sin against God and nature to say otherwise. Even people who don't invoke God directly might still insist that everything is cut and dried and it's all nice and tight and binary.

On the other hand, that information can also be misused. Basically, the argument might exist that since an XXY person exists, therefore sex is meaningless. Yes, there are variations and not all people fit into the binary moulds, but almost everyone does. There really are two sexes, plus a very small handful of people who are hard to classify. The existence of one of those people doesn't mean you ought to be able to use the girls' locker room. That decision is governed by other factors, completely independent of the existence of unusual intersexed people or people with unusual genetics.

There's plenty of variation in secondary sex characteristics, but not in primary characteristics. Meaning, there are two gamete types and two anatomies constructed to produce those two types. It's a functional thing. If an individual of any mammalian species produces one of those two types &/or has that requisite anatomy, we know their sex. if not (incredibly rare), they are literally not relevant to the discussion. As an analogy, if we were discussing left/right eye dominance, you (presumably) wouldn't bring up people born without eyes.

People with these disorders (DSDs) have little/nothing to do with trans-rights, and I've seen a number on twitter that are frustrated by being brought into this debate (and being abused by trans-activists).

Moreover, DSDs are quite heterogeneous - lumping them together is inappropriate/disingenuous. The most common syndrome labeled a DSD being congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH- I see a lot of the causative variants in my job as it's at higher freq in Ashkenazi Jews) - which is only a DSD in females. Affected females occasionally have enlarged clitorises, but often don't exhibit symptoms until later. Like most other DSDs, other systems can be affected - the defect in this case compromises the patients ability to produce a key enzyme in the synthesis of certain steroid hormones. This can affect ability to regulate salt levels and be lethal.

For that matter, cystic fibrosis could be considered a male DSD, as the vas deferens often fails to form (rendering them effectively infertile).

 

[Earthborn]

I would say that the Blanchard categorizations, while not perfect, are useful here. Generally speaking, there's little to no risk from HSTS transgender identified males, but the risk from AGP transgender identified males is pretty much the same as the risk from males in general.

If you are going to accuse group of people of being a higher risk than another group, I think you first need to show there is a significant distinction between the groups.

For the record, based on what they have disclosed about themself, Boudicca is HSTS.

She has said nothing that would allow you to make that determination.

As I noted earlier, people have pointed 3 basic positions: (snip)

The feminist/transactivist position is: sex is not important, people should not be judged solely on their sex. Gender roles (stereotypes associated with those sexs) are also not important.

The "gender-critical" position seems to be that gender roles are not important, but anyone who dares to challenge those gender roles is suspected of being a perv, or declared to be a victim of a conspiracy to convert homosexuals.

So I find myself forced into agreement with Earthborn that the future is individual private spaces.

It is the way.

Which doesn't really bother me, but, as Meadmaker points out, my Planet Fitness membership probably wouldn't stay at $10/month.

Gyms are scam. Your membership is only so low because you are being subsidised by all the people who were tricked into signing up, but did not feel comfortable coming back after the first few tries.

Here's Earthborn's Excellent Lifehack For Geting All The Exercise You Need By Getting To Any Gym For Absolutely Free:
1: Walk up to any gym of your choice
2: Walk back

Tip: for extra intensive work-out: run. Away from the gym.

 

[Elaedith]

The "gender-critical" position seems to be that gender roles are not important, but anyone who dares to challenge those gender roles is suspected of being a perv, or declared to be a victim of a conspiracy to convert homosexuals.It is the way.

Challenging gender roles means saying it's ok for a man to have feminine characteristics or prefer the social roles stereotypically associated with women (and vice versa). Saying that a male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles is not a man but a woman or non-binary is not 'challenging gender roles', it is reinforcing them. You are saying that challenging gender roles involves 'being a different gender' and typically changing presentation, name, pronouns, and even secondary sexual characteristics to match. This is not liberating, it is regressive and sexist.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Challenging gender roles means saying it's ok for a man to have feminine characteristics or prefer the social roles stereotypically associated with women (and vice versa). Saying that a male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles is not a man but a woman or non-binary is not 'challenging gender roles', it is reinforcing them. You are saying that challenging gender roles involves 'being a different gender' and typically changing presentation, name, pronouns, and even secondary sexual characteristics to match. This is not liberating, it is regressive and sexist.

Well said. One of the more disturbing things I've seen in these debates is the continued (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of the feminist/gender-critical position.

Note for others - females are oppressed on the basis of their sex - don't see how you can be a feminist while denying that.

 

[Olmstead]

It's really silly. Gender, whenever it wasn't just a synonym for sex, was used to describe what a certain sex DOES, to differentiate it from the simple biological make-up of a body and focus on the cultural and societal aspects. Consequently, it was usually concerned with the behaviour that most frequently occurred amongst members of the same sex. However, "this man acts like women usually act" sounds stupid, so now we get to discuss gender as if it has some reality outside of simply describing societal, cultural, and historical differences between the sexes.

 

[Earthborn]

You are saying that challenging gender roles involves 'being a different gender' and typically changing presentation, name, pronouns, and even secondary sexual characteristics to match. This is not liberating, it is regressive and sexist.

Letting people define themselves and go by whatever labels they chose is liberating. Demanding that they can only ever be the labels given to them at birth, and segregating society on those labels, is regressive and sexist.

 

[Boudicca90]

People with these disorders (DSDs) have little/nothing to do with trans-rights, and I've seen a number on twitter that are frustrated by being brought into this debate (and being abused by trans-activists)

Except intersex people have been a part of the LGBTQ+ community for quite a while, and many are also trans, since the mismatch between the binary nature of how we view sex and their real life situation can lead to gender dysphoria.

Certainly not all kinds of intersex people, but enough that I've noticed it among my trans friends.

Ultimately my point is that the strict binary classifications we put humans into are far too limiting for how complex we are, both biologically and psychologically.

 

[Meadmaker]

Gyms are scam. Your membership is only so low because you are being subsidised by all the people who were tricked into signing up, but did not feel comfortable coming back after the first few tries.

Here's Earthborn's Excellent Lifehack For Geting All The Exercise You Need By Getting To Any Gym For Absolutely Free:
1: Walk up to any gym of your choice
2: Walk back

Tip: for extra intensive work-out: run. Away from the gym.

Yes, I am being subsidized. I am confident I cost them a lot more than ten bucks per month, while the people who never come back earn them free money.

But....without getting too deeply into the economics of gym memberships...what you are doing is basically saying, once again, "I don't care about that, so it's not important. I don't care what happens to them."



Also, as it turns out, I think it's the only place I have ever seen a naked human being other than a sex partner for the last 25 years, which kinda makes gyms relevant to the whole locker room privacy issues. I don't go to Korean spas.

ETA: And, scam or no scam, if they require additional privacy in their locker rooms, they will cost additional money. If the membership thinks it's worth it, that's what they should do. Given the choice between more privacy and higher cost, versus less privacy and lower costs, I'll choose cheap. That's just who I am. I don't care about being naked around other men. They could save even more money by having only one locker room for both men and women, and that would suit me just fine, personally, but darned near zero women would think it was a good idea, and that really is the key to the whole problem.

 

[Elaedith]

Letting people define themselves and go by whatever labels they chose is liberating. Demanding that they can only ever be the labels given to them at birth, and segregating society on those labels, is regressive and sexist.

If the labels given to you at birth simply identify your biological sex, then you can define yourself any way you want, express yourself any way you want and have any social role, without needing to change any labels.

 

[Olmstead]

Letting people define themselves and go by whatever labels they chose is liberating. Demanding that they can only ever be the labels given to them at birth, and segregating society on those labels, is regressive and sexist.

That's because YOU are assigning some special meaning to those labels, even though they're just innocuous descriptions of biological reality. You could also just call people XX or XY. You can make the argument that it is rude or even wrong to bring up the fact that someone is XY in most situations, but that won't change the fact that they are XY.

 

[Meadmaker]

Come to think of it, the vast, vast, majority of encounters with naked people other than lovers in my entire life have been in gyms. I occasionally change into costumes, but that almost never involves removing underwear, and in my youth there was an occasional clothing-option situation.

Mostly, it's gyms.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Except intersex people have been a part of the LGBTQ+ community for quite a while, and many are also trans, since the mismatch between the binary nature of how we view sex and their real life situation can lead to gender dysphoria.

Certainly not all kinds of intersex people, but enough that I've noticed it among my trans friends.

Yes some people with DSDs (intersex not used as much anymore) have really gotten a raw deal in life from their early treatment - particularly males with ambiguous genitalia - where the old adage was 'easier to dig a hole than make a pole'. Fortunately that seems to be getting better.

But again, these are pathogenic conditions, NOT a part of healthy human variation. Nor do most trans-IDing people have these conditions.

Ultimately my point is that the strict binary classifications we put humans into are far too limiting for how complex we are, both biologically and psychologically.

That's reading into gender roles and/or conflating sexuality/gender roles with actual sex. Many females, notably the GC crowd, don't feel that acknowledging that they are female defines them - rather it's the basis of their oppression. Meaning, it's their physical reality, not how they identify and it shouldn't inhibit how people behave: Males should be free to behave in stereotypically feminine fashion and females in a masculine fashion (or any combination they feel like).

That doesn't change their sex though.

Again, there are two reproductive roles. That's what sex describes.
Note that this (sex) binary was not put into effect by humans, but rather by selection many millions of years ago. There's an obvious reason why there are only 2, but not the thread for that.

 

[Louden Wilde]

If the labels given to you at birth simply identify your biological sex, then you can define yourself any way you want, express yourself any way you want and have any social role, without needing to change any labels.

Better articulated than my version above!

 

[d4m10n]

Letting people define themselves and go by whatever labels they chose is liberating.

I'm fairly skeptical about this. In the realm of sport (the OP was about weightlifting) we put labels on people to establish weight classes, and that labeling liberates people of lesser weight to compete against each other instead of allowing heavyweights to dominate everything. So it is when we classify people by height (in bodybuilding) or birth sex (in most sports).

I just watched the paralympics in Tokyo, and those folks have so many labels that you need a spreadsheet to keep up. Each label provides athletic opportunities to those who fit the description.

 

[Boudicca90]

She has said nothing that would allow you to make that determination.

While I would be "HSTS" based on the description, there is no such thing.

Classifications like this and "AGP" are based on outdated and debunked research and have no basis outside of so-called gender critical arguments.

My attraction to men makes me heterosexual, not homosexual. Although I do have some attraction to women as well, just not typically cis women that much. So I identify as polysexual.

 

[Earthborn]

Well said. One of the more disturbing things I've seen in these debates is the continued (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of the feminist/gender-critical position.

The claim "Saying that a male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles is not a man but a woman or non-binary" is a (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of the transactivist position. "A male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles" is not a description of someone who is transgender, because someone who can be described that way may or may not be transgender, and a male who is transgender may or may not be described in such a way.

Actual transgender individuals are doing a lot to challenge gender roles, picking and choosing whatever aspects fit them best, and labelling them in whatever way they see fit. A transwoman might not be stereotypically feminine in (m)any or all aspects of her life.

Note for others - females are oppressed on the basis of their sex - don't see how you can be a feminist while denying that.

Transwomen are often discriminated in the same or very similar ways as ciswomen. Transmen often report that after transitioning, they face much less "sex-based" discrimination.

 

[Olmstead]

The claim "Saying that a male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles is not a man but a woman or non-binary" is a (seemingly deliberate) misrepresentation of the transactivist position. "A male who is feminine or prefers stereotypically female social roles" is not a description of someone who is transgender, because someone who can be described that way may or may not be transgender, and a male who is transgender may or may not be described in such a way.

This misrepresentation exists because that's the only thing "gender" could possibly refer to when it is used in the context of a person having a male sex but a female gender.