Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

Oh and I guess a large chunk of academia wasn't playing by your portentous rulebook either, when they collectively disowned David Starkey over the views he professed in an interview with Darren Grimes around 18 months ago.

SQUIRREL!!!

Literally none of Stock's critics on here are willing to engage with anything she actually wrote.

 

[d4m10n]

Godless Engineer almost gets the catechism right...

https://twitter.com/cactusfat/status/1455082474200080391

 

[Olmstead]

Do you think academics should have the freedom to, for example, argue that black people are inherently stupid and lazy?

(A simple yes or no answer is preferable - but I doubt I'll get one.)

Do you think academics should have the freedom to, for example, argue that God doesn't exist?


(A simple yes or no answer is preferable - but I doubt I'll get one.)

 

[Darat]

Do you think academics should have the freedom to, for example, argue that God doesn't exist?


(A simple yes or no answer is preferable - but I doubt I'll get one.)

You have just proven LondonJohn correct!

 

[theprestige]

Yeah this is where the disagreement is for me,
you are mixing women and female together in a sentence as if they are equivalent. I don't think that works. Gender and sex aren't in the same category. Sex is a constant and gender is....not?

You're still missing the point. Ron's principle is that this is the only definition of woman that is clear, concrete, and makes any sense. Different people are telling you in different ways that "woman" divorced from "female" is pretty much meaningless. Hell, you're saying the same thing, in your own way.

 

[Olmstead]

Yeah this is where the disagreement is for me,
you are mixing women and female together in a sentence as if they are equivalent. I don't think that works. Gender and sex aren't in the same category. Sex is a constant and gender is....not?

And once someone actually comes up with a proper definition of gender based on these parameters this thread will really start kicking.

 

[d4m10n]

And once someone actually comes up with a proper definition of gender based on these parameters this thread will really start kicking.

Some people are expected to conform to masculine norms (e.g. myself, Buck Angel^WP). Other people are expected to conform to feminine norms (e.g. my wife, Harisu^WP). Still other people would rather avoid gendered social norms altogether (e.g. Quinn).

 

[theprestige]

Sure, but not the whole necessity of freedom and proper methods of handling disagreements. That's the part that seems particularly lacking even (especially?) within academia itself.

Well yeah, we're getting into the "wear it like a skin suit" phase. You can think of it like a bust-out: Establish the value of academia as a reliable source of knowledge, then cash in on the reliability to establish your orthodoxy as conventional wisdom.

 

[Ziggurat]

As for the rest of what you wrote above: it's sweet and reactionary that you think language and the definitions of words are fixed and immutable. But it's just not true.

Yes, language changes over time. But acknowledging that doesn't give a minority the authority to force any particular change on the majority. That too is not generally how language works. If the change happens organically, fine, but the change you're attempting to make isn't organic at all, it's forced. Not only do I (and many others) not like being forced to change how I use language, but I have yet to see a coherent alternative definition for "woman" that any significant number of people actually agree on, and I have seen NO argument for why it's actually desirable to adopt any such alternative definition. So you're trying to force a change to something you can't even define.

 

[theprestige]

Also, this isn't really a question of language changing over time. It's more a question of a group of activists trying to achieve a change in thought by forcing a change in meanings of words. It's more like propaganda or thought policing than natural language drift.

(Obviously language is also going to drift, and has been drifting, as society has deprecated traditional gender stereotypes and become more tolerant and inclusive of people who present counter to those stereotypes. But we're also exploring the space beyond mere drift, where what words we use and what thoughts we have about those words are being prescribed to us.)

 

[Olmstead]

Some people are expected to conform to masculine norms (e.g. myself, Buck Angel^WP). Other people are expected to conform to feminine norms (e.g. my wife, Harisu^WP). Still other people would rather avoid gendered social norms altogether (e.g. Quinn).

Layers upon layers just to hide the fact that there's nothing else to gender than social norms and stereotypes.

Buck Angel looks like a stereotypical man, so now he's a man.

Harisu looks like a stereotypical woman, so now she's a woman.

Obviously, this disqualifies any transwomen or transmen who can't or choose not to carry it off. It also disqualifies any cis-men or cis-women who, for whatever reason, are mistaken as the opposite sex/gender.

And this doesn't even touch upon the fact that expectations are both a personal and societal thing.

 

[Matthew Best]

Some people are expected to conform to masculine norms (e.g. myself, Buck Angel^WP). Other people are expected to conform to feminine norms (e.g. my wife, Harisu^WP). Still other people would rather avoid gendered social norms altogether (e.g. Quinn).

Your wife is Harisu? Congratulations!

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Your wife is Harisu? Congratulations!

I was more surprised by learning that d4m10n is Buck Angel.

 

[Matthew Best]

(I knew that already)

 

[d4m10n]

I trust you will all keep this on the DL

 

[d4m10n]

Obviously, this disqualifies any transwomen or transmen who can't or choose not to carry it off.

This is true only if people generally apply the norms of masculinity or femininity based on successfully passing, as opposed to signaling a desire to be seen a certain way.

 

[Olmstead]

This is true only if people generally apply the norms of masculinity or femininity based on successfully passing, as opposed to signaling a desire to be seen a certain way.

Which disqualifies anyone who doesn't bother with the signalling (whatever that's supposed to mean, because in most contexts it simply means looking or acting more like the stereotypical image of their chosen gender) or anyone who openly flouts it because they really like Ziggy Stardust or something.

 

[theprestige]

Too bad nobody can explain what set of gender stereotypes transsexuals actually want to be associated with them. Or why anyone else should be obligated to apply those stereotypes.

TRADITION: Women are supposed to be sensitive and submissive and a little bit helpless.

FEMINISTS: That's crap.

SOCIETY: Yeah, it is crap. Let's subvert and demolish that crap.

TRANSWOMEN: We want you to see us as women.

SOCIETY: Sensitive and submissive and a little bit helpless?

TRANSWOMEN: . . . Shut the **** up, TERFs.

 

[TomB]

Some people are expected to conform to masculine norms (e.g. myself, Buck Angel^WP). Other people are expected to conform to feminine norms (e.g. my wife, Harisu^WP). Still other people would rather avoid gendered social norms altogether (e.g. Quinn).

I don't have a problem with the concept of separating gender (man/woman) from physical body and sex (male/female). My concerns are not about who is a man or who is a woman (gender), but rather when should people be put into groups and when and why those groups should be treated differently.

If you remove the physical aspects (sex) from consideration, that leaves gender right? But what exactly is that? I know that gender expectations include how we dress and act and our roles in family and professional life. It's a Uncoupled from sex, gender seems to become based on how one fits into gender roles. Which, I know, is circular. Beyond that, it seems to be how someone views themself internally. Which is hard to describe.

So....

Absent the sex-related differences, what is inherent in gender that requires that the genders be separated or treated differently?

It's my understanding that feminists have been struggling to tear down expectations and gender roles in order to be treated the same as men: same range of jobs, responsibilities, fashion and grooming choices, and behavior norms, so that any limitations are due to physical capabilities or (in the case of medical/reproduction issues) physical needs. If you separate gender and sex, it seems to me their goal is to tear down gender completely.

So...everyone should be treated the same with no differences due to gender.

Then if:
Sports should not be segregated by sex, why should it be segregated by gender?

If bathrooms should not be segregated by sex then why should it be segregated by gender?

If locker rooms should not be segregated by sex, then why should they be segregated by gender?

And so on.

My point is that I'm open to ideas of why segregating by sex is inappropriate, but it does not immediately follow that segregating by gender is appropriate. A successful argument against sex segregation results in the removal sex segregation. To replace it with gender segregation, you then need an additional argument justifying segregation by gender.

I think JoeMorgue was the one many threads ago asked how they were to treat a trans woman as as a woman when he treats both men and women the same. That's a shorter version of a similar concept, I think.

 

[theprestige]

I don't have a problem with the concept of separating gender (man/woman) from physical body and sex (male/female). My concerns are not about who is a man or who is a woman (gender), but rather when should people be put into groups and when and why those groups should be treated differently.

If you remove the physical aspects (sex) from consideration, that leaves gender right? But what exactly is that? I know that gender expectations include how we dress and act and our roles in family and professional life. It's a Uncoupled from sex, gender seems to become based on how one fits into gender roles. Which, I know, is circular. Beyond that, it seems to be how someone views themself internally. Which is hard to describe.

So....

Absent the sex-related differences, what is inherent in gender that requires that the genders be separated or treated differently?

It's my understanding that feminists have been struggling to tear down expectations and gender roles in order to be treated the same as men: same range of jobs, responsibilities, fashion and grooming choices, and behavior norms, so that any limitations are due to physical capabilities or (in the case of medical/reproduction issues) physical needs. If you separate gender and sex, it seems to me their goal is to tear down gender completely.

So...everyone should be treated the same with no differences due to gender.

Then if:
Sports should not be segregated by sex, why should it be segregated by gender?

If bathrooms should not be segregated by sex then why should it be segregated by gender?

If locker rooms should not be segregated by sex, then why should they be segregated by gender?

And so on.

My point is that I'm open to ideas of why segregating by sex is inappropriate, but it does not immediately follow that segregating by gender is appropriate. A successful argument against sex segregation results in the removal sex segregation. To replace it with gender segregation, you then need an additional argument justifying segregation by gender.

I think JoeMorgue was the one many threads ago asked how they were to treat a trans woman as as a woman when he treats both men and women the same. That's a shorter version of a similar concept, I think.

In a nutshell: If you separate gender from sex, it stops having any meaning at all. Trans activists are demanding, as a human right, that everyone else conform to a standard that nobody can articulate and that probably doesn't even exist as such anymore.