Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Boudicca90]

The people who wrote that report in the UK disagree with you.

What do you know that they don't?

They have their own biases, just as I do.

 

[Meadmaker]

They have their own biases, just as I do.

They also have credentials.

 

[Boudicca90]

They also have credentials.

And I'm sure that's important to you.

 

[theprestige]

They have their own biases, just as I do.

If you and they are both following your respective biases instead of the science, why should we privilege your opinion over theirs?

Why is it okay for you to follow your biases, but it's not okay for me to follow mine?

 

[theprestige]

And I'm sure that's important to you.

First you say it's important to pursue objectivity, then you dismiss objective standards. Make up your mind.

 

[Boudicca90]

First you say it's important to pursue objectivity, then you dismiss objective standards. Make up your mind.

Having 'credentials' is no evidence of objectivity.

 

[Meadmaker]

And I'm sure that's important to you.

It gives their opinion more credibility than yours.


However, this isn't reallu an argument. It's just the automatic gainsaying of what the other person has said, so I'll leave it behind.

However, for future reference, I'll leave you with a prediction. I don't know what will happen in the future with respect to privacy or some of the other issues related to transgender rights, but with sports, it's fairly obvious.

Transwomen will not be allowed to compete in women's sports, including girls sports at the high school level.

This is based on the assumption that there are a significant enough number of transgender people that they will be a noticeable presence in sports. So far, that hasn't happened. That might be because the number of transgender people is very small, and very few of them want to participate in sports. Or, it might be that social pressure has kept transgirls from pursuing competitive sports in significant numbers. If it changes, to the point where the occasional transgirl is not a novelty, the rules will be rewritten to prevent their participation in girls' divisions.

I say this will happen because women's sports cannot survive a significant number of transgirls competing, in which case the transwomen and transgirls will be back to competing against the males anyway.

 

[d4m10n]

Not effectively zero, but through HRT any difference would be minimal enough to still be fair.

I'm not confident that this claim is backed by evidence.

From the SCEG Project for Review and Redraft of Guidance forTransgender Inclusion in Domestic Sport 2020:

From the synthesis of current research, the understanding is that testosterone suppression for the mandated one year before competition will result in little or no change to the anatomical differences between the sexes, and a more complete reversal of some acute phase metabolic pathways such as haemoglobin levels although the impact on running performance appears limited, and a modest change in muscle mass and strength: The average of around 5% loss of muscle mass and strength will not reverse the average 40-50% difference in strength that typically exists between the two sexes. These findings are at odds with the accepted intention of current policy in sport, in which twelve months of testosterone suppression is expected to create equivalence between transgender women and females.

 

[Myriad]

Even things that are thought of as objectively true are typically only true if no other variables exist.

It's objectively true that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But that speed is in a complete vacuum. When the distance between atoms within a medium become closer, the speed of light slows down. So that speed becomes subjective to its surroundings.

Hell, most concepts in physics we thought were objectively true were completely thrown on it's head with the discovery of quantum physics, and scientists are still searching for a unified field theory to explain it all.

Your viewpoint does depend upon a philosophy that denies the existence of any objective truth. But physics doesn't support that. Having incomplete knowledge of objective reality does not put the existence of objective reality in doubt.

In quantum physics, some properties of particles can't be known simultaneously through measurement. One view of this is that the particles have the properties but there's no way to observe them, but the current prevailing view is that the particles don't possess the properties when they haven't been measured. If that turns out to be the objective reality of the nature of particles, that's still an objective reality.

In no case are the measured properties of a particle affected by anyone's wish or opinion of what position or momentum they'd prefer the particle to have.

 

[gnome]

Even things that are thought of as objectively true are typically only true if no other variables exist.

It's objectively true that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But that speed is in a complete vacuum. When the distance between atoms within a medium become closer, the speed of light slows down. So that speed becomes subjective to its surroundings.

Hell, most concepts in physics we thought were objectively true were completely thrown on it's head with the discovery of quantum physics, and scientists are still searching for a unified field theory to explain it all.

Reality can be more complicated than first impressions--it can be counterintuitive as well. And something can be objectively true but irrelevant in context.

Be careful drifting towards questioning the existence of objective fact, as it is generally not a good sign for the strength of one's arguments.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not effectively zero, but through HRT any difference would be minimal enough to still be fair.

I don't think you understand the biological differences between males and females. They extend well beyond hormone levels.

 

[Paul2]

Even things that are thought of as objectively true are typically only true if no other variables exist.

It's objectively true that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But that speed is in a complete vacuum. When the distance between atoms within a medium become closer, the speed of light slows down. So that speed becomes subjective to its surroundings.

Qualifications like the medium that light travels in doesn't change the objectivity of the fact that light travels at X miles per second in some medium. There's nothing subjective about that.

Hell, most concepts in physics we thought were objectively true were completely thrown on it's head with the discovery of quantum physics, and scientists are still searching for a unified field theory to explain it all.

Objectively true always has to mean, given the evidence we have currently. Objectively true doesn't mean, true for all time and can never be changed based on new evidence.

However, this line might be off-topic, so I'm happy for you to have another reply to me and then perhaps we should end it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

These terms are used in these contexts because it's much easier/quicker than writing (for example): "pregnant women and pregnant transmen". But in the context of one-to-one communications (eg when a woman or transman is actually in an obstetrics clinic), a ciswoman will always be addressed as a pregnant woman.

If I saw a public health statement on, say, prostate cancer which referred to "people with prostate cancer", I wouldn't feel in the least bit outraged/excluded/marginalised as a cisman. Because I realise that transwomen can get prostate cancer too. But obviously that's just me. Each to his/her own.......

You were still completely wrong in your baseless assertion though

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's absolutely true.

But what's also true is that people born biologically female can be men; and people born biologically male can be women.

So men (transmen) can have babies. And women (transwomen) can have penises.

And if we redefine the term men to include pillows, then men can be full of stuffing too!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope. A woman is a person who identifies as a woman.

That's still a senseless, meaningless, ridiculous definition. It has no meaning.

What's a blognark? A blognark is anything that says it's a blognark.

Great... but what's a blognark?

 

[Emily's Cat]

(And obviously I'm aware that an exceptionally tiny proportion of females can develop prostate cancer, but I don't believe that the inclusive use of "people" in this context is solely aimed at females)

I'm guessing it's about equal to the exceptionally tiny proportion of males that can develop cervical cancer.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm partial to: A woman is a person who everyone else identifies as a woman.

This puts womanhood squarely back in the realm of social constructs, which is one place we all agree it's been all along. In fact it's pretty much the only thing we all agree on.

I would be okay with something along the lines of:

Woman
1) female adult human
2) an adult human that is perceived and believed to be female by other humans

 

[Emily's Cat]

Another one of many attempts to get a gender-critical academic (Dr Kathleen Stock) fired. Some outfit called antiterfSussex put up posters calling her a transphobe who makes trans and nonbinary students 'unsafe', let off smoke bombs and threatened a campaign of harassment until the university fires her.

So far doesn't seem to be going too well for them.

I did get a bit of a laugh out of the fact that the activists here are claiming that they feel "unsafe" because of Stock's work, despite Stock's support and respect toward transgender people as a whole. And in response to that feeling "unsafe" because of someone else's beliefs... they go forth and engage in violence and threats.

Got a second laugh out of this crusade of harassment being supported by the person in charge of the anti-bullying group.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How do you feel about:

"A homosexual is someone who identifies as a homosexual"

or

"A Miami Dolphins fan is someone who identifies as a Miami Dolphins fan"?

Homosexual: a person who is sexually or romantically attracted to people of their own sex

Fan: an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of a sport, pastime, celebrity, etc.
---> Miami Dolphins Fan: an enthusiastic devotee, follower, or admirer of the Miami Dolphins

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure, but I think LJ was trying to say that a guy could seek out and engage in sex with other guys, but unless he identifies as a homosexual, then he isn't a homosexual.


Which is....an interesting take on the meaning of the word.

Sure, sure. And a person can be a vegan because they identify as vegan, they're just meat-loving, cow-devouring, milk-swilling vegans.