Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

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

Enh. We all already know what "female" means in this context. Even those of us pretending we don't, or trying to use a different meaning from time to time.

And I think we all already know that "man" has no real meaning at all on this context.

There's no point in asking LJ for his definition of female, since we already know what the only possible answers are:

- Female is defined according to the biological facts we've all already stipulated.

- Gibberish

- No comment

And there's no point in asking for the definition of man, either, since if it's not no comment it must necessarily be gibberish.

There's no reason to treat the seventh installment of this thread as if it were still the first and we haven't yet established some very basic and prominent features of the debate landscape. Pushing for a fringe reset just benefits the side of the argument that can't keep up with developments or move past its lack of comprehensible definitions.

 

[gnome]

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.

Would I be saying your point correctly if I phrased it in this manner: that you agree there are objective biological differences that are currently classified in common categories "male" and "female", but you advocate avoiding using those categories in discussion and policymaking?

If I've caught that right (and please correct me otherwise) it sounds like you're in favor of referring to those variations individually (such as whether a person has a certain genitalia or chromosome set) should it truly need to come up.

Trying to make sure I am not making straw of your point of view before I add more commentary--have I got it right?

 

[Earthborn]

That is a change in the definition of male and female, one in which those words do NOT refer to immutable characteristics.anymore.

Transwomen are often referred to as "Male-to-Female" and transmen as "Female-to-Male", so the definitions have been a bit muddled for quite a while. If it leads to confusion, just add "biological" or something, to make it clear you are talking about the biological definition of the term.

 

[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.

When you say that you're attracted to males, what about males attracts you that females don't have? Are you attracted to penises? Large muscles? Short haircuts? Something else?

Note: I don't attach a value judgment to any possible answer. What you do or don't find attractive makes no difference to me (assuming it's all adult consensual). The relevance is to word definitions only.

 

[Ziggurat]

Transwomen are often referred to as "Male-to-Female" and transmen as "Female-to-Male", so the definitions have been a bit muddled for quite a while.

Some people's definitions are muddled. Mine aren't.

 

[d4m10n]

There's no point in asking LJ for his definition of female, since we already know what the only possible answers are...

I must disagree. If I want to know what makes a female human a "man," in someone's view, it's much easier to ask than to speculate and likely miss.

(I'd guess it's all down to gender identity, a subjective sense of self which cannot really be measured or even questioned, but that's just a guess.)

 

[theprestige]

Transwomen are often referred to as "Male-to-Female" and transmen as "Female-to-Male", so the definitions have been a bit muddled for quite a while. If it leads to confusion, just add "biological" or something, to make it clear you are talking about the biological definition of the term.

I don't really have much interest in tailoring my language to accommodate the dishonest jargon of biological-fact-deniers. The "male-to-female" folks need to get on my page, not me on theirs. Unless they're talking about the actual to-the-limits-of-our-technology medical process of converting a male body into a reasonable facsimile of a female body. Drastic hormone treatments and surgical replacement of a penis with a vagina? That's adequately male-to-female in my book. "I'm female because I think I'm female" is not.

 

[theprestige]

I must disagree. If I want to know what makes a female human a "man," in someone's view, it's much easier to ask than to speculate and likely miss.

(I'd guess it's all down to gender identity, a subjective sense of self which cannot reallybe measured or even questioned, but that's just a guess.)

That's Part 1 thinking. This is Part 7. We've already been through this line of questioning more than once. We already know that it results in a non-answer, or in self-contradictory gibberish, from the trans-inclusionist side.

We've already tried several times to start over and give the trans-inclusionist argument an opportunity to clarify this point and move forward on this basis. These attempts have gone about as well as fringe resets normally do. But that's okay. We can move forward with the understanding that the trans-inclusionary argument does not have a good answer to this fundamental question.

I think it's well past time we stopped slowing down and starting over. Let's move the conversation forward. If the trans-inculsionist argument can't keep up, that's its problem. For the rest of us, it can now be a valuable data point to keep in mind for further discussion.

For example: My view is now that we know the trans-inclusionist argument has no coherent definition of man and woman, we can focus on two much more important points:

- transgenderism as an activist movement to normalize the transgression of sex-segregated spaces.

- the redefinition of a medical condition on par with BIID to satisfy political correctness.

Playing silly buggers with definitions is a mug's game, and we don't have to play it.

 

[theprestige]

Or put it another way: Now that we know that the trans-inclusionary argument has no coherent definition of gender apart from sex, we can see that this is really about transsexualism. This becomes even more evident when we observe the attempts to erase the coherent definition of sex that we've been relying on for clarity in this discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

This is incorrect, on a few levels.

First, sex is not variable. Chromosomal variations don't produce any other sexes - there are still only two sexes in humans, regardless of very rare chromosomal atypicalities.

Second, sex in all mammals is not defined by chromosomes, it's defined by gametes. More specifically, it's defined by the type of gametes that one is configured to produce, regardless of whether one actually produces them. A mammal that has or had gonads that would normally produce small mobile gametes is male. A mammal that has or had gonads that would normally produce large immobile gametes is female. Throughout all mammals - even the platypus - each individual is either male or female, never both. Even in cases where there is some ambiguity about sex-based organ conformation... they are all one or the other. There is no third sex, nor is there any in-between sex.

Third, and most importantly, disorders of sexual development (not disorders of sex, mind you) have nothing at all to do with gender identity. Nothing at all. Don't use people with medical conditions as a ploy to push an ideological agenda. The overwhelming majority of people with a DSD do NOT experience Gender Dysphoria, and the overwhelming majority of people with Gender Dysphoria do NOT have a DSD.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, there are variations and not all people fit into the binary moulds

All humans fit the binary mould... they just don't all fit *unambiguously*. It's not always clear with a glance at infant genitals, sometimes a deeper look is required to determine whether an individual is male or female.

But every one of us is binary, because sex in mammals is strictly binary.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

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

There's that whole sexual orientation bit. Pesky, I know. But they have expressed that they are exclusively attracted to males. You can quibble if you like, but there is a fairly well documented distinction between the two groups. As well documented as the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual.

The fourth-wave liberal 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.

Thestrawman caricature "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.

Fixed that for you.

The classical feminist/Radical feminist/actual gender critical position is that gender roles are artificially imposed by society (largely by a male-dominated society) and actively prohibit social equality and justice for both sexes, and that those gender roles should be eradicated completely. But sex is a real thing, with real impacts, on real people, and that females experience discrimination, mistreatment, oppression, and violence across the globe on the basis of their sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Exactly.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Woohoo!

I identify as a tall black horse with red hair and green eyes and angel wings!

On a more serious note... demanding that everyone else accept a definition that is in opposition to reality is anti-science, and borders on Flat Earth arguments. People can lable themselves and define themselves however they like - that doesn't obligate anyone else to accept their identity.

For example... YOU have refused to acknowledge and validate MY identity as a feminist. YOU defined "feminism" as being explicitly and only pro-trans-entitlements.

YOU aren't letting ME (and others) define ourselves and be "liberated".

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You were "assigned male", and you are attracted to males that identify as men as well as males that identify as women.

Either way you cut it, you are a male that is attracted to males, which means you're homosexual.

Applying some pragmatism, once you're post-op, I'll happily grant you the title of heterosexual, because at that point it has little bearing on anything else. But at present, two people with penises being attracted to each other are homosexual, not heterosexual.

You don't get to redefine same-sex orientation out of existence.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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, sure, I know we're all well aware of the statistics about transgender identified male babies being subjected to clitorectomies, stitching, and other forms of "woman" genital mutilation. And of course, the large number of transgender identified male selective abortions. And we're all in the know about the transgender identified male children forbidden to attend school and gain an education. Or the transgender identified male children sold into sex slavery as concubines. And the transgender identified male children subjected to forced marriages as breeding stock. Or the transgender identified males subjected to corrective rape. And the transgender identified males who end up pregnant from sexual abuse by a rapist. Or the transgender identified males shamed for their periods, or sent to a period hut because they're 'unclean'.

Yep. Totally the same thing, it's all based on "gender".

 

[d4m10n]

That's Part 1 thinking. This is Part 7. We've already been through this line of questioning more than once. We already know that it results in a non-answer, or in self-contradictory gibberish, from the trans-inclusionist side.

I don't claim to know that. For all I know, LJ provided coherent definitions of "men" and "women" somewhere in part 2, and I just don't remember.

 

[Boudicca90]

Would I be saying your point correctly if I phrased it in this manner: that you agree there are objective biological differences that are currently classified in common categories "male" and "female", but you advocate avoiding using those categories in discussion and policymaking?

If I've caught that right (and please correct me otherwise) it sounds like you're in favor of referring to those variations individually (such as whether a person has a certain genitalia or chromosome set) should it truly need to come up.

Trying to make sure I am not making straw of your point of view before I add more commentary--have I got it right?

I would say this is pretty accurate.

As I've stated, I lack certain aspects of the female sex. Like a Y chromosome and lack of a female reproductive system. But these are just parts of the whole, and I would say hormonally, neurologically, and somewhat physically I am biologically female.

In everyday life I am seen as female, it's only certain instances where I choose to disclose my trans status, like when I'm being seen by a doctor or nurse and I need to clear things up about my biology.

Ultimately it comes down to: I am not a male, I refuse be called a male, and I have no desire to continue conversation with the transphobes that call me that.

Transwomen are often referred to as "Male-to-Female" and transmen as "Female-to-Male", so the definitions have been a bit muddled for quite a while. If it leads to confusion, just add "biological" or something, to make it clear you are talking about the biological definition of the term.

Yeah... The terminology has changed in a relatively short time, which makes for some confusion.

Older terms like 'MtF', 'FtM', and 'Transsexual' are still around, and still used by some trans people, but not all of us. I prefer Assigned Male At Birth (AMAB) myself, but even that has an alternate way of saying it.

When you say that you're attracted to males, what about males attracts you that females don't have? Are you attracted to penises? Large muscles? Short haircuts? Something else?

Note: I don't attach a value judgment to any possible answer. What you do or don't find attractive makes no difference to me (assuming it's all adult consensual). The relevance is to word definitions only.

I am attracted to females too, that's why I'm not strictly hetero. I'm just attracted more to men and masculinity in general. I prefer my partner to have a penis, but it's not a deal breaker if they don't. I can work around it.

I would probably rank my sexual attraction like Cis Men > Trans Women > Trans Men > Cis Women, with Non-Binary people thrown in there depending.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I go to Planet Fitness and occasionally shower in the women's locker room (where I belong) with no problem. And it's comforting to know that based on past incidents in the news that if a TERF or transphobe tries to give me a problem, I will be protected and they will be asked to leave.

I do still try to cover up my penis however. Just out of courtesy. But that kind of support by the company goes a long way in why I keep my membership there even though there are better gyms out there.

And this is a really, big, important element of this discussion.

You are considerate and courteous. And you make a sincere and considerable effort to pass and to not draw attention to yourself.

If all transwomen did that, there'd be virtually no discussion about this at all. If all transwomen showed the same respect and care that you do, females would be willing to accept you all into our spaces as a reciprocal courtesy. Because at that point, the only people complaining are the fringe religious folks who are full of hate.

It is not the existence of transgender people who are the sticking point. It's self-id.

Seriously - do you want Alex Drummond in your changing room? Or Darren Merager?

 

[Boudicca90]

That's Part 1 thinking. This is Part 7. We've already been through this line of questioning more than once. We already know that it results in a non-answer, or in self-contradictory gibberish, from the trans-inclusionist side.

We've already tried several times to start over and give the trans-inclusionist argument an opportunity to clarify this point and move forward on this basis. These attempts have gone about as well as fringe resets normally do. But that's okay. We can move forward with the understanding that the trans-inclusionary argument does not have a good answer to this fundamental question.

I think it's well past time we stopped slowing down and starting over. Let's move the conversation forward. If the trans-inculsionist argument can't keep up, that's its problem. For the rest of us, it can now be a valuable data point to keep in mind for further discussion.

For example: My view is now that we know the trans-inclusionist argument has no coherent definition of man and woman, we can focus on two much more important points:

- transgenderism as an activist movement to normalize the transgression of sex-segregated spaces.

- the redefinition of a medical condition on par with BIID to satisfy political correctness.

Playing silly buggers with definitions is a mug's game, and we don't have to play it.

Transphobes won't get to dominate this discussion. You can leave at any time.

Ultimately your views will die off like your political ideology will. Your bigotry will be tossed in the dumpster of history.