Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Louden Wilde]

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.

Sure folks like Buck Angel face less sex-based discrimination (no quotes needed) because it's no longer apparent that they are female. As to the first part, you're sea-lioning. People have pointed out the hundreds of thousands of females killed every year via sex selective abortion, infanticide and neglect due to their sex. There's the female genital mutilation in Africa, child brides and forced pregnancies. Boko Haram, the Taliban, etc. are not going to be asking people how they identify - because sex will always be more important than gender identity.

 

[Meadmaker]

(All to ensure the Men remain better than the Women, I guess) But I am not the one making those rules and as long as it is all fun and games, it is not that important.

It doesn't affect me, so who cares?

 

[Boudicca90]

I feel that we should attempt to describe reality objectively. My understanding is that you are male, and are sexually attracted to other males (for arguments sake, let's say exclusively). By definition, that is homosexual, and shouldn't be an insult. That may not be what you'd like, but it's objectively verifiable.

Broadly, TW are never going to be considered a subset of adult human females because of the reproductive role of the latter - the whole reason sex exists.

Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

(Emphasis added)

Most of the long term participants have recognized that definitions are things invented to facilitate communication. So if I say that such and such a person is a "woman", and someone else says that she is not a "woman", and yet we each know lots of things about that person, and indeed the same things, then what we are doing is not arguing anything about the person. We are arguing about the definition of a word.

So it is with "female" in your exchange with Louden. You have told us enough about yourself that we know that, by some definition of female, you are not female. You are using a different definition. Louden is not wrong. Louden is using a different definition.


A couple of points. Agreement on definitions helps facilitate communication, and the definition that Louden is using is actually the same definition that darned near everyone in the world is using, including darned near everyone who contributes to this thread. While his anatomical definitions don't mean anything to you, everyone else understands them just fine, and are pretty satsified with them.

Second, I highly doubt you will present a dictionary style definition for your definition of "female". If you could, I would be interested, because a lot of posts have been made regarding that subject, and I don't think it has every been satisfactorily resolved. Louden could do so for his definition, but I don't think you would be able to do so for yours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Earthborn]

People have pointed out the hundreds of thousands of females killed every year via sex selective abortion, infanticide and neglect due to their sex. There's the female genital mutilation in Africa, child brides and forced pregnancies. Boko Haram, the Taliban, etc. are not going to be asking people how they identify - because sex will always be more important than gender identity.

Your examples show that societies that put a greater emphasis on biological sex than on gender self-expression, are regressive and sexist. Thank you for making my point for me.

 

[d4m10n]

Agreement on definitions helps facilitate communication, and the definition that Louden is using is actually the same definition that darned near everyone in the world is using, including darned near everyone who contributes to this thread. While his anatomical definitions don't mean anything to you, everyone else understands them just fine, and are pretty satsified with them.

People should be willing to provide their definitions in any thread where several possibilities are in play.

Here are mine, from way back in the thread:

I'd say that people born with ova are female, people who produce sperm are male, and people who never carry either ova nor sperm (a tiny fraction of the population) need to be sorted based on other criteria, if they need be sorted all.

If you're not producing gametes, you're not playing the game of sexual reproduction, which is the reason males and females exist in the first place, as distinct groups observed by naturalists across the animal kingdom.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

You can play all the Humpty Dumpty language games you want, but you will never get everyone else to play along. And Louden isn't wrong, you just want to use a different definition than he is using. Which, fine. But that's a preference of yours, not a universal fact. You don't get to dictate that we all have to change our definitions to suit your preference. It's not going to happen. You are male, according to standard and long-standing definitions of the word. That's factually correct.

 

[Ziggurat]

Your examples show that societies that put a greater emphasis on biological sex than on gender self-expression, are regressive and sexist. Thank you for making my point for me.

You think that is the defining characteristic of the Taliban? That they care more about biological sex than gender self-expression?

Yeah, no. You are deliberately missing the point.

 

[p0lka]

Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

I think female/male is a biological fact/constant.

You can say you are a woman certainly, or any other gender label if you want as that is allowing people to be themselves. 'When I were a kid we got told what toys we were allowed to play with', hehe not good.

Posters have shown evidence that female isn't really a variable though, so what do you think about that?

your last sentence is strange

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

are you saying you don't care about the reality or facts of a thing?

If so, what are you basing your outlook on?

 

[Lplus]

I think female/male is a biological fact/constant.

You can say you are a woman certainly, or any other gender label if you want as that is allowing people to be themselves. 'When I were a kid we got told what toys we were allowed to play with', hehe not good.

Posters have shown evidence that female isn't really a variable though, so what do you think about that?

your last sentence is strange


are you saying you don't care about the reality or facts of a thing?

If so, what are you basing your outlook on?

By most definitions this would be correct, however it is clear that attempts are being made to change the definition - see Merriam-Webster definition b:

Having a gender identity that is the opposite of male

It looks like two new defintions are needed reduce the discussion to purely physical attributes - the Bedicked (BD) and Nonbedicked (NBD)

 

[LondonJohn]

By most definitions this would be correct, however it is clear that attempts are being made to change the definition - see Merriam-Webster definition b:

It looks like two new defintions are needed reduce the discussion to purely physical attributes - the Bedicked (BD) and Nonbedicked (NBD)

Nope.

It means that there is such thing as a female who is a man. Or a male who is a woman. Or either a male or a female who is neither a man nor a woman.

It's really, truly, not so difficult.

 

[Lplus]

Nope.

It means that there is such thing as a female who is a man. Or a male who is a woman. Or either a male or a female who is neither a man nor a woman.

It's really, truly, not so difficult.

I disagree.

 

[LondonJohn]

I disagree.

You disagree with my premise, or you disagree that it's not difficult?

(In both instances, your government, legislators, judiciary and medics ought to be happy to explain things further to you)

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope.

It means that there is such thing as a female who is a man. Or a male who is a woman. Or either a male or a female who is neither a man nor a woman.

It's really, truly, not so difficult.

The point wasn't about a change in the definition of man and woman, but a change in the definition of male and female. Boudicca90 uses a definition in which she is a female woman, born with a penis. Boudicca90 insists that she is NOT a male woman, and thus does not match your definitions here. That is a change in the definition of male and female, one in which those words do NOT refer to immutable characteristics.anymore.

 

[Lplus]

You disagree with my premise, or you disagree that it's not difficult?

(In both instances, your government, legislators, judiciary and medics ought to be happy to explain things further to you)

I disagree with your premise. I realise that providing a defintion based on purely physical attributes makes any attempt to blur the distinction between the potential penetrators and the potential penetrated more difficult, but ask me if I give a monkey's crutchpiece.

 

[Meadmaker]

I disagree with your premise. I realise that providing a defintion based on purely physical attributes makes any attempt to blur the distinction between the potential penetrators and the potential penetrated more difficult, but ask me if I give a monkey's crutchpiece.

It seems to me that they don't seem to want any definition at all. Definitions are so limiting.

It's time to end lexical tyranny!

 

[Ziggurat]

It seems to me that they don't seem to want any definition at all. Definitions are so limiting.

It's time to end lexical tyranny!

It's only logical, if you buy into Humpty Dumpty's viewpoint. As he said, which is to be the master?

 

[theprestige]

Wrong. I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual. I'm just not entirely the same as cis females.

Your strict anatomical classifications don't mean anything to me.

I bet those anatomical classifications mean a lot to the heterosexual males looking to you as a potential sex partner.

Of course, abandoning strict anatomical classifications makes gibberish of "I am female and attracted to males, making me heterosexual." Such a description no longer describes anything in any meaningful way.

 

[theprestige]

Nope.

It means that there is such thing as a female who is a man. Or a male who is a woman. Or either a male or a female who is neither a man nor a woman.

It's really, truly, not so difficult.

Unfortunately it comes at the cost of "man" and "woman" no longer having any meaning other than sex-denial. Transgenderism ends up on exactly the same footing as BIID.

 

[d4m10n]

It means that there is such thing as a female who is a man.

What is your working definition of these two terms, for our purposes here?