Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Ziggurat]

People might still divide people over arbitrarily chosen differences.

We do, in many different ways, not just gender.

While most human cultures divide people in gender categories along preceived sexual differences, that is not the only form of gender that exists or possibly could exist.

The connection between sex and gender doesn't require that gender split exactly according to sex. But it absolutely is in reference to sex, even if that gender is a denial of sex. Absent sex, there is no gender. The concept doesn't even make sense. There are plenty of aribitrary divisions that aren't connected to sex (for example, the goth kids versus the jocks), and no doubt we would still have many such divisions if magically sex never existed, and maybe even some new ones. But it wouldn't be gender.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh baloney. Go research your own country before you regurgitate your blind assumptions as truth. Just because you assume that your legislators *must have* sought advice from all interested parties doesn't mean they actually *did*.

If you bothered to take the time to look into it, you might be surprised at exactly how frequently UK government does not include females and female-focused organizations in their list of "interested parties". They sure as hell didn't include any before they decided that transgender identified prisoners should be housed based on their gender identity, regardless of their anatomy.

Are you sure about all of that?

(Because the inconvenient truth is that you're wrong)

Oh and are you also labouring under the misapprehension that the UK Government and the UK legislature are both predominantly male in composition? There's another inconvenient truth for you to try to rationalise away.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh and are you also labouring under the misapprehension that the UK Government and the UK legislature are both predominantly male in composition? There's another inconvenient truth for you to try to rationalise away.

I'm not sure why you think that matters.

One of the reasons I don't like the idea of sex or gender quotas on government is that I don't think it actually achieves the stated goal of representing everyone's interests better. The problem with that theory is that frequently poor women and rich women have very different interests. Same with poor men and rich men. Rich women frequently share more in common with rich men than poor women, because class and wealth are often more important than sex. And it's overwhelmingly the poor, not the rich, who end up in prison.

The obvious way this manifests in the current topic is that rich female legislators have basically zero personal interest in how females are imprisoned. It's not something they generally ever have to worry about. Any concern they have for the welfare of female prisoners is just as abstract as the concern that male legislators may have.

And here's the second dirty little secret to all of this: men are taught to protect women, but women aren't. There are good reasons for that, I'm not suggesting we change it, nor am I claiming that teaching always sticks. But one of the consequences is that if you're expecting a rich female legislator to care more about a poor female than a rich male legislator in a situation where neither of them has anything to gain, you may end up severely disappointed.

tl;dr: the sex of a legislator isn't really going to have anything to do with how they view prisoner housing, because none of them think they're ever going to prison.

 

[theprestige]

Ms Izzard wants a sex change.

Why? The conventional wisdom seems to be there's nothing about sex that needs changing except the perception. Ms Izzard is already of the female sex, yes? Aside from the lifelong testosterone doses and all the resulting effects, which don't matter to sexual identity. And aside from the anatomical equipment, which also doesn't matter to sexual identity. What exactly does a sex change change for her, that she hasn't already changed just by saying it's changed? Or isn't already female simply by declaring it so?

I get that when Michael Scott says, "I declare bankruptcy!" it's supposed to be funny, because it doesn't actually work that way. But when Boudicca says, "I declare sex change!" we're supposed to take it seriously because that's exactly the way it works. Did Ms Izzard not get the memo? Is she a remnant of the uncreconstructed generation that still believes sex change requires actual body modification? Is she still hung up on outward expressions of gender stereotypes in popular culture?

 

[Meadmaker]

More word wars.

Here's the thing, though. You say that there is an inherent biological aspect of you that makes you similar enough to most people that have uteruses that you should be in one category. Ok. Fine. We will say that's "female", and that the people in the category are "women". That defining characteristic that you share is called "gender". Great.


So, is there a defining characteristic shared by only those people that actually have a uterus?

Or is that so insignificant it's not worth assigning a word to?


Because, you see, all of these word wars are pretty arbitrary. Words can mean what we want them to mean, but reality doesn't change once you label something. Some of us think that having a uterus or a penis or something is actually quite significant. Those organs that we use to discriminate one group from another actually matters. We call the discriminant used "sex".

Is that a good label? Is it worth a label?

Thinking about it, I'm just going to withdraw the question and just make a statement instead. No need to beat around the bush.

You can say that you are female, or a woman, or whatever else you want to say about yourself, and you can try to convince other people to adopt your preferred vocabulary, and to a limited extent, I'm fine with that.

But sooner or later, you have to acknowledge that for all the similarities that you find so important between you and the other people who call themselves women, there's also a difference, and that difference matters. it's not going away, and people aren't going to decide it's insignificant. Pregnancy, giving birth, reproduction. That isn't just wome strange weird hangup of Christians and bigots. It's humanity. It's reality. It's why we live. It's what creates all the other things that grow up around it. It even shapes our very bodies, which is reflected in strength, speed, and athletic ability.

It's important enough that there will always be a word for that discriminant that separates the two halves of humanity. I'll go with "male" and "female" right now, until something better comes along. Maybe you have some traits that are more common in females than in males, and those traits are so significant that you think you ought to be called "female" youself. Ok, fine, but then we would need a word for those traits that you don't share with most females. Things like the ability to have a baby, which is kind of significant.

The only way that you will get people to actually accept that you are really female is to get people to start using some different word for those other people that have a uterus. If you have a word for them, we can stop using "female" to designate that.

 

[Olmstead]

Ignoring gender, there IS an argument to be made that sex segregation of many places doesn't really make sense in a world where people can modify their sexual characteristics at will (we're not quite there yet, but we're close enough). This means that there will be males who look like females, and females who look like males, and anything in between. There really is no way to make sex segregation work in a world like that when it comes to public places like bathrooms and changing rooms.

Professional sports and prisons could consider people on a case by case basis, but even then things can get complicated.

 

[d4m10n]

You say that there is an inherent biological aspect of you that makes you similar enough to most people that have uteruses that you should be in one category. Ok. Fine. We will say that's "female", and that the people in the category are "women". That defining characteristic that you share is called "gender".

The only problem I see here is that the allegedly defining characteristic cannot be detected by our most advanced laboratory instruments or even by interrogating the individual in question.

It has been claimed here that "Eddie Izzard was always a woman" but for many decades Izzard did not claim to be a woman. The same may be said of the athlete formerly known as Bruce Jenner and the famed movie makers formerly known as the Wachowski brothers. Go back to 2008 and ask Izzard/Jenner/Wachowski their gender identity, they will not tell you they've always been a woman.

What we're positing here is a "defining characteristic" which is so important that people ought to be sorted by it in sports leagues and private spaces, but so elusive that individuals may fail to identify themselves correctly for most of their own lives.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Everybody else has been hard at work for a couple generations now, trying to erase gender stereotypes. Not perpetuate them.

Take away the stereotypes, and gender is meaningless. What does it mean to be a woman?

This really is the heart of this whole discussion. Why would we want to perpetuate these stereotypes when they cause people harm and don't serve an essential purpose.

Unfortunately, I think the (indirect) answer we're getting is that some people really, really like them. They just happen to like stereotypes that wouldn't typically be associated with them, so are pushing the idea that these stereotypes constitute some (un-assayable) inner essence that is more important than sex or people wanting to get rid of those stereotypes.

 

[Ziggurat]

This really is the heart of this whole discussion. Why would we want to perpetuate these stereotypes when they cause people harm and don't serve an essential purpose.

It's faster.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Ignoring gender, there IS an argument to be made that sex segregation of many places doesn't really make sense in a world where people can modify their sexual characteristics at will (we're not quite there yet, but we're close enough).

I'd say we're still a long ways from that- both in terms of functionality (to be clear, nobody is actually changing sex) and erasing the effects that male vs female development has on the body. For example, Caitlyn Jenner & Lavern Cox almost certainly are much larger and carry more muscle than would if they had undergone female development. Taking estrogens doesn't get rid of that.

ETA - I think we're going to be able to extend (healthy) lifespan for decades before we're actually able to change sex

 

[ponderingturtle]

We're back to self ID issues. If, when talking about access rights, you would be willing to limit trans access only to people who have undergone HRT or surgery, you would get a lot more support than if you demand the same rights for males with fully functional reproductive systems.

Great catch 22 there, you have to be living as your gender to qualify for HRT or surgery but need to have them to live as your gender. Genius!

 

[ponderingturtle]

More word wars.

Here's the thing, though. You say that there is an inherent biological aspect of you that makes you similar enough to most people that have uteruses that you should be in one category. Ok. Fine. We will say that's "female", and that the people in the category are "women". That defining characteristic that you share is called "gender". Great.


So, is there a defining characteristic shared by only those people that actually have a uterus?

So if someone was born without one or had a hysterectomy they don't qualify as female or women then. Clearly I need to get more information about someone before I call them mam.

If you are talking about uterus, people with a uterus works. Once again you are actually including more that just people with a uterus into your categorization as you are likely not excluding people who have had a hysterectomy.

 

[d4m10n]

So if someone was born without one or had a hysterectomy they don't qualify as female or women then.

If someone was born without ova, they very probably have an SRY.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Its funny how my clear and concise definitions of male and female of being able to reproduce sexually in that role are getting closer and closer to those, who absolutely reject them, are defining them. Going pure biological determinism never seems to get people where they want to actually go(which is mostly defining trans people out of existence).

 

[Meadmaker]

So if someone was born without one or had a hysterectomy they don't qualify as female or women then.

This post is still just as stupid as the last billion times you've said it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

This post is still just as stupid as the last billion times you've said it.

You were looking for a term for people with a uterus, they would not qualify under that term. This is basic simple logic, if you use X trait to define group Y then people without X trait are not in group Y.

You want to describe people with a uterus then you are excluding those with a hysterectomy. That is how groupings work.

Kind of like how in medical senses they stopped describing people as gay and are instead men who have sex with men. A behavioral definition instead of an identity definition.

 

[Meadmaker]

You were looking for a term for people with a uterus, they would not qualify under that term. This is basic simple logic, if you use X trait to define group Y then people without X trait are not in group Y.

You want to describe people with a uterus then you are excluding those with a hysterectomy. That is how groupings work.

Kind of like how in medical senses they stopped describing people as gay and are instead men who have sex with men. A behavioral definition instead of an identity definition.

That's ********. You know it. You're trolling.

 

[Meadmaker]

Great catch 22 there, you have to be living as your gender to qualify for HRT or surgery but need to have them to live as your gender. Genius!

While this was once considered a requirement, it is not today.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar... for therapy include,to make a fully informed


ETA: I wanted to post the above because I do want to give credit where credit is due. If PonderingTurtle had been correct, it would have created a dilemma. Moreover, based on the url I posted above, it once was true, so it's not like there was anything wrong with PT's post. It was just outdated.


Except for the fact that the whole thing was a distraction from what was actually going on.

The post PT was responding to, by using the diversion, had a fairly simple point, and that point was about self ID. It's a point that has been made many, many, times, but it keeps coming up.


When it comes to public policy, a lot of us who are generally described as "gender critical" or any other variation, almost universally see an important difference between people who have experienced actual, physical, transformation as a result of medical procedures, including HRT, compared to someone whose only "transition" is to declare that they are now a girl/woman. If you exclude intact, functional, males from the body of people who you want to be legally treated as women, most of us will have a whole different attitude.

 

[Paul2]

So, is there a defining characteristic shared by only those people that actually have a uterus?

We have to learn to stop framing the issue in terms of a uterus or the like, as it only leads to derails. Gotta learn to frame the issue in terms of gametes (which I have seen you do in the past, you just slipped up here). Then you have a true, real binary in relation to trans issues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are more factors other than that that go into somebody being male, like secondary sex characteristics and neurological makeup.

Two questions:

1) Do you feel that the differences in secondary sex characteristics are innate and exist prior to hormone therapy? Or are those changes the direct effect of exogenous cross-sex hormones being applied?

2) Can you describe the differences in neurological makeup between males and females? What is a female neurological makeup, and what is a male one?