Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Emily's Cat]

My identity is not up for debate. Period.

It doesn't need to be. You, and everyone else, can identify to themselves however they wish and however they believe.

What is up for debate, in my view, is whether or not your view of yourself entitles you to obligate other people to accept your identity as reality.

Consider: Oli London was assigned white at birth, but identifies as Korean. Oli has even gone so far as to surgically alter their physical features to that they look more Korean than what they were assigned at birth. Do you believe that everyone else, including people who were assigned Korean at birth, should be obligated to accept Oli London as actually being Korean?

Is London's identity up for debate?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wow, well that is certainly a unique opinion. "Gender doesn't exist!"

Gender does exist, and it is much more important when it comes to everyday society than sex is.

Gender exists, sure. But it exists as a social construct, a fantasy of designed stereotypes that act as barriers. Gender is no more valid or important than racial stereotypes are.

I also disagree that gender is more important than sex in everyday society. It may very well be more important to you personally, but your priority ranking doesn't place an obligation on other people to dismiss the very real, very meaningful, very impactful elements of their sex in favor of your internal image of yourself.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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.

More broadly, we need people to stop derailing the issue with the results of pathological conditions/mutations, results of injury and similar medical issues. it's disingenuous. There are conditions that would eliminate pretty much every human characteristic.



ETA - it's also a horrible leap in logic- the idea being if they can find one individual that can't be defined as female or male, then the definition is worthless and should be superseded by gender identity.

 

[Meadmaker]

We have to learn to stop framing the issue in terms of a uterus or the like, as it only leads to derails.

Everything leads to derails. If you say gametes, then trolls would talk about infertility or injuries. If you add clauses about chromosomes, trolls will talk about Kleinfelter's syndrom. If you add clauses about having nonfunctional organs which, in most people, would likely have produced gametes, trolls will talk about one case in 1933 where someone with testes had grown fallopian tubes and.....none of it matters.


Everyone knows what we are talking about. If they pretend not to, they're trolling.

I'll cut Boudica90 a bit of slack on that. I can understand why she very much wants to say that she is female, and I'll go along with it, except in those limited cases where it is very obvious that we are specifically talking about anatomical females. At that point, I'll even go a tiny bit further, if you can just give me a term that I can use to describe the people that everyone knows damn well I'm referring to anyway. However, if people absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the category formerly knows as "women" even exists, they aren't interested in communication. If they try to disrupt the conversation by throwing in stupid objections to any attempt to make a definition, they're trolling.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I can see the 'gender-critical' position is quickly becoming the 'gender-denial' position. Any excuse you need to discriminate against us, I guess.

Nobody here has any wish to discriminate against you. I certainly think that you merit reasonable and respectful treatment throughout society, and should not be abused or mistreated on the basis of your presentation.

But there's also a very significant issue about what you consider "discrimination" and whether your chosen interpretation of that has any real meaning to anyone other than you. You aren't asking for equal treatment, you're asking for special treatment. You're asking for the existing rules that pertain to spaces and services that are separated on the basis of sex be set aside for you, but not for other people of your sex class. You're asking to be an exception to equal treatment.

And you're asking for that special treatment to be extended to anyone who says a particular magic phrase, regardless of whether they've shown any of the same dedication that you have or not.

Again, since it keeps getting swept aside in the desire to dehumanize those you see as your "enemies": I have no problems with transgender people. I have a problem with entitlements granted on the basis of self-declaration.

Let's try yet another analogy. I have no problems with means-tested social support structures. I do have a problem with the idea of means-tested social support structures being extended to encompass people who self-declare that they identify as needful, without actually having to be in need in reality.

 

[theprestige]

Speaking of which, we should probably retire "assigned gender at birth". It's obsolete technical jargon that simply does not mean what trans-activists so desperately want it to mean. The actual meaning is "recorded observed sex at birth".

"Gender assignment" is actually a socialization process that is driven by social interactions and largely mediated by the parents in early years. Most of those interactions will be based on observing the same thing the doctor observed and put on the birth certificate, and then applying the prevailing social constructs of the day to that observation.

But nobody is looking at the birth certificate and saying, "it says here you're a boy, so we gotta treat you like a boy (whatever that means)". Rather, they're looking at you and saying, "you look like a boy, so that's how we're gonna treat you by default". Even without a birth certificate, society would still assign gender based on direct observation of sex. And even with a birth certificate that records the sex observed at birth, the social process of gender assignment can be opposed, subverted, etc.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Basically you are saying, if they fit your stereotypes of what their gender should look like. That doesn't really help with getting rid of those stereotypes.

BS. It has nothing at all to do with "gender". If a person conforms to the visible secondary characteristics that are the result of sex, they will not stand out.

You're the one who is pushing the falsehood that sex is a mystery that nobody can solve without looking at someone's chromosomes or inspecting their genitalia. And it *is* a falsehood. It's even worse than that - it's a religious tenet that demands humans be exempted from the natural order, and are specially apart from all other animals. You, and every other person with even a tiny bit of basic knowledge can tell the difference between a drake and a duck mallard. You, and everyone else, can tell the difference between a bull and a cow. You, and everyone else, can tell the difference between a rooster and a hen chicken. Or between a cock and a hen quail. Or between a peacock and a peahen.

Pretending that it's so incredibly difficult to tell the difference between males and females of the human species is religious thinking, and it borders on zealous dogma.

It seems you are thinking of Eddie Izzard as she presented herself 20 years ago.

No, I'm thinking of Izzard just two years ago, and referencing the way that they had described themselves consistently for twenty-some years that I have been familiar with them as a comedian: As a male transvestite that fancies females.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It would work sufficiently if the segregation *required* that those body modifications were made.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

It's handy to have testiculators telling females what females are and what we should call ourselves. Clearly, prostate owners know better.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Speaking of which, we should probably retire "assigned gender at birth". It's obsolete technical jargon that simply does not mean what trans-activists so desperately want it to mean. The actual meaning is "recorded observed sex at birth".

"Gender assignment" is actually a socialization process that is driven by social interactions and largely mediated by the parents in early years. Most of those interactions will be based on observing the same thing the doctor observed and put on the birth certificate, and then applying the prevailing social constructs of the day to that observation.

But nobody is looking at the birth certificate and saying, "it says here you're a boy, so we gotta treat you like a boy (whatever that means)". Rather, they're looking at you and saying, "you look like a boy, so that's how we're gonna treat you by default". Even without a birth certificate, society would still assign gender based on direct observation of sex. And even with a birth certificate that records the sex observed at birth, the social process of gender assignment can be opposed, subverted, etc.

*Giggle*

Even as infants, parents take different precautions when changing the diaper of a male baby than they do for a female baby. If you're not careful when changing a male infant's diaper, you're likely to get pee in your eye. If you're not careful when wiping a female baby, you're likely to cause that infant a urinary tract infection.

I would be absolutely thrilled if society as a whole would drop all of the gender-based garbage that we wrap around people based on their perceived sex. But even if we managed to pull that off 100%, there would still remain several ways in which males and females need to be treated differently because they have different biological and anatomical needs.

 

[Boudicca90]

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?

Yes, she is already female, but not all of us are content with the genitals we are assigned at birth. I always like to say that trans people are all on our own individual journeys. For me, I don't have a big issue with my penis, so getting GRS isn't important to me (I am considering having orchiectomy done at least, to get rid of my testicles). She feels differently when it comes to her own body.

I never declared myself as female while I was living as male, even though that is how I saw myself. Sex change either does or doesn't require GRS, it all depends on the individual and how they feel about their body.

 

[Boudicca90]

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.

True. There are plenty of trans and non-binary people especially who don't want to adhere totally to a specific gender or sex. Even outside of the concept of transgenderism.

My best friend recently came out as a non-binary man (he was assigned female at birth) and he is going for a mix of masculine and feminine features using testosterone and breast reduction. People like him are even harder for society to put in a specific box, like it likes to do. I feel like this discussion has been focused mostly on binary trans people like me for a reason.

As an aside, I also consider myself somewhat of a transhumanist and can't wait for a future where we can biologically and/or technologically enhance ourselves to our own desires. Deus Ex here I come!

 

[lionking]

Yes, she is already female, but not all of us are content with the genitals we are assigned at birth. I always like to say that trans people are all on our own individual journeys. For me, I don't have a big issue with my penis, so getting GRS isn't important to me (I am considering having orchiectomy done at least, to get rid of my testicles). She feels differently when it comes to her own body.

I never declared myself as female while I was living as male, even though that is how I saw myself. Sex change either does or doesn't require GRS, it all depends on the individual and how they feel about their body.

This whole thread jumped the shark long ago, but this is just surreal. Genitals assigned at birth? Words fail me.

 

[Boudicca90]

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.

I didn't publicly claim to be a woman before I transitioned either, only to a specific few people that I trusted enough. Which tends to be the case when we are in a situation where we are too afraid to transition, like I was at for nearly 20 years.

I know in Caitlyn Jenner's case, she felt like a woman even when she was competing as a man. She has stated how she started transitioning somewhat back then, but then she met Kris and she was convinced to stop.

They knew back then, even though they were too afraid to tell anybody because of the inevitable backlash. Luckily our society has progressed to the point where we can be open about who we are.

 

[Boudicca90]

Everything leads to derails. If you say gametes, then trolls would talk about infertility or injuries. If you add clauses about chromosomes, trolls will talk about Kleinfelter's syndrom. If you add clauses about having nonfunctional organs which, in most people, would likely have produced gametes, trolls will talk about one case in 1933 where someone with testes had grown fallopian tubes and.....none of it matters.


Everyone knows what we are talking about. If they pretend not to, they're trolling.

I'll cut Boudica90 a bit of slack on that. I can understand why she very much wants to say that she is female, and I'll go along with it, except in those limited cases where it is very obvious that we are specifically talking about anatomical females. At that point, I'll even go a tiny bit further, if you can just give me a term that I can use to describe the people that everyone knows damn well I'm referring to anyway. However, if people absolutely refuse to acknowledge that the category formerly knows as "women" even exists, they aren't interested in communication. If they try to disrupt the conversation by throwing in stupid objections to any attempt to make a definition, they're trolling.

It comes down to the fact that biology isn't as black and white as people like to think it is. For both sex and gender, there are a multitude of different individual factors that they are composed of. It is not trolling to point that out.

I just use cis females or cis women when I need to make the distinction between us.

 

[Louden Wilde]

It comes down to the fact that biology isn't as black and white as people like to think it is. For both sex and gender, there are a multitude of different individual factors that they are composed of. It is not trolling to point that out.

I just use cis females or cis women when I need to make the distinction between us.

:-|
With sex it is trolling. I've pointed the legit definition several times (mostly recently here and you ignore it.

Your feelings and gender ID are not relevant to your actual sex.

And as many of us have pointed out, gender ID is not more important than sex.

 

[Boudicca90]

:-|
With sex it is trolling. I've pointed the legit definition several times (mostly recently here and you ignore it.

Your feelings and gender ID are not relevant to your actual sex.

And as many of us have pointed out, gender ID is not more important than sex.

And your opinions of me aren't relevant to me.

 

[Ziggurat]

It comes down to the fact that biology isn't as black and white as people like to think it is. For both sex and gender, there are a multitude of different individual factors that they are composed of. It is not trolling to point that out.

I just use cis females or cis women when I need to make the distinction between us.

It doesn't matter how many factors are involved. There are still only two sexes in humans. If you're talking about anything other than what's related to gamete production, you aren't talking about biological sex.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

non-binary man

I never knew there was such a thing. Isn't the whole point of being non-binary to say that you're neither a male or female? Or both male and female?

I've probably got some terminology wrong here. Maybe the whole point of being non-binary to say that you're neither a man or a woman.

Meadmaker has mentioned the difference between arguing about words and arguing about states of affairs in the world. Maybe this is one of those things. We seem to have two things under discussion, one of which is the immutable characteristics of a person, and the other is the identity with which that person feels most comfortable. Have we decided yet on the terms to use for each? For example, what do we call a person with two copies of the X chromosome these days?

 

[Louden Wilde]

And your opinions of me aren't relevant to me.

It has nothing do with my opinion of you. It has to do with denying what are as close to facts as we get in biology. And I'm someone who spent a good number of years on research related to sex/development (& from an evolutionary viewpoint).

The fact that I apply the label male to you is dispassionate.

It's like a telling a astronomer that your feelings on astrology outweigh the astrophysics.