Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

assigned male at birth

Rational People Everywhere: That's obsolete medical jargon, meaning "observed to be male at birth".

Trans-Inclusionary Extremists: SeX HaS AlWaYs bEeN A SoCiAl fIcTiOn!

 

[Boudicca90]

As someone who thought they understood trans vocabulary and etiquette but decided to dig a bit deeper, I visited a few online resources and then referenced Wikipedia where I saw this definition:

A trans woman is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

There is a similarly styled definition for 'trans man'. Lots of problems with these definitions, IMO. First of all, it suggests that the words 'woman' and 'man' are properly used to denote a persons gender identity as opposed to their birth characteristics. Secondly, it appears to treat their birth characteristics (male of female) as being merely assigned. Curious stuff.

This is an accurate definition from Wikipedia.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And deliberately referring to a transgender person as "it" is....... pretty transphobic, n'est-ce pas?

No more so than referring to an adult human female as "bleeder" or "gestator" or "menstruator" or "birthing body".

 

[theprestige]

This is an accurate definition from Wikipedia.
: thumbsup :

It's an arbitrary definition that someone has accurately recorded on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia itself is not a source of truth. Wikipedia entries may or may not cite an actual source of truth.

If your idea of "accuracy" is "someone said they found it on wikipedia somewhere", then you are already badly losing this debate. Try finding the actual source of that definition, and telling us why you think that source is accurate.

ETA: Though it's entirely circular, which makes it accurate... by definition. And also useless. And it also doesn't actually contradict the orthodoxy of binary sex. Its worst sin is just sliding "woman" in there as a circular reference.

 

[Meadmaker]

Translation: She's breaking a few eggs, but that's okay because I really want that omelette.

In this case, though, I don't think there's an omelette at the end of the trail.

LondonJohn discussed this a little while ago with respect to spectator sports. There will be zero interest in spectator sports where transwomen are winning. Allowing transwomen like Hubbard to compete in spectator sports as women accomplishes nothing for sports, and nothing for women, and nothing for transwomen. There's no omelette, just broken eggs.

 

[Myriad]

And still does not offer a definition of "woman."

 

[p0lka]

I didn't choose to be a gay man, and I didn't choose to be a trans woman.

I did what I had to to survive, and that meant suppressing who I was and pretending to be someone I wasn't. I was always a trans woman, but my fears kept me from being who I was for almost two decades. And so I pretended to be a gay man.

Thx for your answer.
I hate how people have to go through that, as I've said previously in this thread everyone should have the freedom to be themselves, without societal pressure to conform to gender labels and what not.

My issue is that the male of the species and female of the species isn't decided by societal pressures, it's a factual thing.
changing from female to male or vice versa isn't a real thing anyone can do atm.

It's not even in the same realm as gender, so equating the two makes it harder to address gender 'be whatever you want' issues.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, here is a specific. Should Eddie Izzard be "allowed" to self-ID (your term) as a woman? Bear in mind you said that allowing such things would lead to an increase in sexual assualt against women.

If no, why not? What is the harm in it? (does it lead to a slippery slope?)
If yes, why not others?

I think we need to add a little bit more clarity to this.

Specifically, what does self-id alter?

Izzard can refer to themself as a 'woman' and dress however they please. No objection.

The question though, is whether or not Izzard's self-declaration of womanhood entitles them to strip down naked in communal changing rooms with underage females and expose them to their penis. And whether or not Izzard's self-declaration of womanhood entitles them to be placed in a prison cell with a female.

And you know, whether or not Izzard's self-declared gender identity entitles them to be recognized as the "funniest female comedian" over actual females like, say Sarah Millican.

 

[Olmstead]

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

 

[Emily's Cat]

None of you are supportive of us. We have very few actual allies on this board.

You, Emily's Cat, The Athiest, the prestige, et al. All of you hold transphobic beliefs and want to exclude us from society on the basis of our gender and sex, or what you mistakenly believe it to be.

Even sometimes allies like LondonJohn still want to discriminate against us, just in a more limited fashion. So even they have a limit to how much they support us.

In your view, does support require that a person deny reality and accept every thing you say without challenge?

And I think you're significantly misrepresenting my position. I have now repeatedly tried to engage with you on how you and I can find a policy approach that allows YOU and people like you access to female services and facilities, but with denies people like Shupe that access. And I'll remind you that YOU don't want Shupe to have that access either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am a woman, therefore I belong in women's restrooms, locker rooms, spas, shelters, and prisons. You want to keep me out of where I belong in society. Trans-exclusionary.

Your argument reminds me of when homophobes would decry same-sex marriage. "They aren't being discriminated against, a gay guy can marry a woman if he wants!"

Shupe also identified as a woman. Do you feel that you and I should both be obligated to allow Shupe entry to female restrooms, locker rooms, spas, shelters, and prisons?

And I will again reiterate: I want an approach that allows YOU (and those like you) entry but which denies SHUPE (and those like them) entry.

If allowing YOU entry requires allowing SHUPE entry, then I oppose that POLICY. I oppose it because it puts ME (and other females) at risk, and it also puts YOU (and people like you) at risk.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

Until we perfect mind transference, I think your definition still fails.

I can get that a female person might be uncomfortable in their body, and may even be able to make an argument that they believe they would be uncomfortable in any female body. But that female person has no possible way to experience being in a male body, and hence cannot say that they are comfortable in a male body rather than a female body.

Similarly, I don't 'feel comfortable' in my female body. At my age, most of the time I'm uncomfortable. But this is the only body I have, the only body I've ever had, and the only body it is possible for me to have. My body is a female body, and I'm pretty sure that my body DNGAF whether I'm 'comfortable' in it or not.

 

[p0lka]

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

I disagree,

A woman is a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.
a man is also a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.

some people are indoctrinated to one or the other by things like "ladies don't do that" or "be a man",

religious indoctrination is acknowledged as a bad thing yeah?

I think gender indoctrination is much worse.

 

[Olmstead]

I disagree,

A woman is a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.
a man is also a particular gender label that some people wish to conform to.

some people are indoctrinated to one or the other by things like "ladies don't do that" or "be a man",

religious indoctrination is acknowledged as a bad thing yeah?

I think gender indoctrination is much worse.

But we're looking for a non-circular definition in the context of transgenderism. I don't think societal expectations do the trick.

 

[theprestige]

In this case, though, I don't think there's an omelette at the end of the trail.

LondonJohn discussed this a little while ago with respect to spectator sports. There will be zero interest in spectator sports where transwomen are winning. Allowing transwomen like Hubbard to compete in spectator sports as women accomplishes nothing for sports, and nothing for women, and nothing for transwomen. There's no omelette, just broken eggs.

This is confusing. Are you talking about literal eggs, such as a woman might produce? Or are you talking about "eggs" as a synonym for a man's testicles? Either way, it doesn't sound very productive or philanthropic.

 

[Olmstead]

Until we perfect mind transference, I think your definition still fails.

I can get that a female person might be uncomfortable in their body, and may even be able to make an argument that they believe they would be uncomfortable in any female body. But that female person has no possible way to experience being in a male body, and hence cannot say that they are comfortable in a male body rather than a female body.

Similarly, I don't 'feel comfortable' in my female body. At my age, most of the time I'm uncomfortable. But this is the only body I have, the only body I've ever had, and the only body it is possible for me to have. My body is a female body, and I'm pretty sure that my body DNGAF whether I'm 'comfortable' in it or not.

Gender reassignment surgery is pretty drastic. As is taking hormones. I think there's a big difference between the normal discomfort most people feel with regards to their bodies, and what people with gender dysphoria experience. Yes, it's impossible for them to TRULY know how the opposite sex feels, but I'm willing to accept that someone who wants to remove their penis has a real problem being in a male body, and that they would have much less of a problem being in a female body.

 

[Boudicca90]

It's an arbitrary definition that someone has accurately recorded on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia itself is not a source of truth. Wikipedia entries may or may not cite an actual source of truth.

If your idea of "accuracy" is "someone said they found it on wikipedia somewhere", then you are already badly losing this debate. Try finding the actual source of that definition, and telling us why you think that source is accurate.

ETA: Though it's entirely circular, which makes it accurate... by definition. And also useless. And it also doesn't actually contradict the orthodoxy of binary sex. Its worst sin is just sliding "woman" in there as a circular reference.

I never said it was accurate because it's on Wikipedia. It's accurate because I agree with it. Being on Wikipedia is irrelevant.

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

I also think this is a good definition. As a woman, I feel far more comfortable in a female body than I did a male one.

 

[theprestige]

"A woman is a person who feels comfortable in a female body rather than a male body."

This thread has gone over this, and this has been the only definition that ever worked. No one likes it, because on the one hand it's hard to justify claims to "womanhood" based on this definition, and on the other hand it feels like creating a definition for the sake of creating a definition, like you're a very tired lexicographer with a deadline in the morning.

I don't want to take the wind out of your sails, but this definition absolutely does not work for me. If there's one thing males cannot claim, it is access to the qualia that arise from being in a female body. I can't tell you what transwomen think they're comfortable with, but the one thing I know it can't be is the experience of being in a female body.

 

[Paul2]

I never said it was accurate because it's on Wikipedia. It's accurate because I agree with it. Being on Wikipedia is irrelevant.

Wait, do you mean instead that you agree with it because it's accurate?

 

[gnome]

Anti-trans astroturf hate machine goes brrrrrrrrrrrrr



https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/matt-walsh-pretends-to-be-virginian-to-make-anti-trans-speech-at-school-board-meeting/

Leasing a property someplace you don't live so you can froth at the mouth with a bunch of other reactionary freaks is very normal, healthy behavior actually.

I prefer that to demanding the use of someone else's soap box.