Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

One of the things that drives me nuts about the sports conversation is that it always goes the same. Apparently, because there are people with DSDs, we have to let Terry Miller compete as a girl.

Right? Let's come up with a general rule for clear males and females, and then see what needs to be done - if anything - about the extremely rare edge cases.

This is what I mean about the perfect being the enemy of the good, and about how only saboteurs are actually trying to push that as a solution. They want to trick us into thinking everything's a mysterious and intractable edge case.

If we can't have one perfect rule that fits everything, we can't have any rules at all - except fiat self-ID, of course.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're right. It shows that for the vast majority of people - even homosexual people - attraction is about SEX not about gender presentation.

Because, and I know this is a mind-blower... sex is about SEX.

Imagine not wanting to eat plastic fruit after you realize it’s plastic. That’s so superficial.

 

[TomB]

If that is true, it is true because of prior usage and because the writers intended it to be taken as an insult. That's how language works, words gain meaning from how they are used.

I believe "TERF" is a slur b/c that's how it's generally used, to put people down and shut them up. I don't believe "menstruator" has a similar history, or that advertising agencies seek to insult potential customers.

I think it's worth pointing out that in many cultures and religions, the menstrual period has some taboos associated with it. Often it would be considered unclean or a process of cleansing and involved restrictions on activities that females were allowed to engage in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_menstruation

From the link:

The basis of many conduct norms and communication about menstruation in western industrial societies is the belief that menstruation should remain hidden.

So you are talking about a term that, while descriptive, is a culturally uncomfortable topic for conversation. It also has a number of euphemisms, some of which are used as an insult.

Might that go a little bit towards explaining why some might not like to be referred to as "menstruators?"

 

[TomB]

I think what ST is saying is that a guy like Michael Phelps can do what he does not just because he works hard, but because he was born with lucky genes which were a freak coincidence of biology.

And that's true.


And then somehow that means that biological males should be allowed to compete as girls in high school. The connection is a bit fuzzy to me. Maybe he can explain it better.

The problem is that the logical conclusion to that line of thought is not that trans-women/girls should be able to compete with biological women/girls, but that there should be no separate divisions at all.

In my opinion this is the case with a lot of the segregation arguments. Arguments that segregation should not be by sex do rarely promote arguments for segregation by gender. If the arguments against the reasons for sex segregation are accepted, what reason is left for any segregation at all?

 

[Ziggurat]

If that is true, it is true because of prior usage and because the writers intended it to be taken as an insult. That's how language works, words gain meaning from how they are used.

I believe "TERF" is a slur b/c that's how it's generally used, to put people down and shut them up. I don't believe "menstruator" has a similar history, or that advertising agencies seek to insult potential customers.

I’m sure advertisers don’t seek to insult customers. That doesn’t mean that customers don’t feel insulted. That is often the way with PC language, though. It’s not always appreciated by the people it’s supposedly adopted on behalf of (see: Latinx).

“Menstruater” is a really bad way to refer to a person.

 

[Cain]

I don't know why that would be an ideal world? Exceptions exist, but we're sexually dimorphic because that's how reproduction works. As long as we remain a species, the vast majority of humans are going to have the desire to continue their gene lines. And that rather strongly implies that the vast majority will be sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

That's how sex... you know... works.

Evolution will also favor rapists over asexual pacifists. Evolution is stupid. It does not create bodies with happiness in mind. Robert Wright has made the point that pleasures are designed to evaporate so that we keep pursuing them. Sex. Food. **** those games. I think Pinker said something to the effect, "My genes can go jump in a lake."

One of the Decoding the Gurus hosts paraphrased early Dawkins "our conscious selves are like a parasitic virus that invaded brains; we inhabit hosts, bending their biological substrate to our own fiendish desires, which is to do things like create art, and have nice non-dominating relationships with one another. Things that have nothing to do with evolution." And that's fantastic.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Your tendency to extrapolate beyond the positions held leads you into error on a regular basis. Your extrapolations of other people's positions should not be confused with actual positions.

If genetic screening ever becomes normal and routine, then it is conceivable that the results of that screening might affect athletic participation. I don't have enough expertise to know if it ought to.

A simple physical is not going to weed out all the fakes who pass as girls like Semenya. You need more to keep them out.

 

[ponderingturtle]

One of the things that drives me nuts about the sports conversation is that it always goes the same. Apparently, because there are people with DSDs, we have to let Terry Miller compete as a girl.

I don't get the connection. We know that the objection is about people whose biological sex is well known, and doesn't match the gender. AIS has nothing to do with the all time record holder for the 200 meter run in Conneticutt.

Because it is all about definitions. I get that you view them as two separate kinds of freak and they need to be kept out for separate reasons in sports. But it all gets to what is the definition of girl or woman. I get that you don't like trans people or people with DSD getting classified as such.

 

[lionking]

A simple physical is not going to weed out all the fakes who pass as girls like Semenya. You need more to keep them out.

Semenya has fathered children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't know why that would be an ideal world? Exceptions exist, but we're sexually dimorphic because that's how reproduction works. As long as we remain a species, the vast majority of humans are going to have the desire to continue their gene lines. And that rather strongly implies that the vast majority will be sexually attracted to the opposite sex.

That's how sex... you know... works.

And we have once again defined sex that means there is no such thing as gay sex, well outside of trans issues.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You're right. It shows that for the vast majority of people - even homosexual people - attraction is about SEX not about gender presentation.

Because, and I know this is a mind-blower... sex is about SEX.

And of course only PIV sex counts no matter if it makes women actually orgasm or not, the female orgasm is pretty irrelevant anyway.

 

[Puppycow]

Evolution will also favor rapists over asexual pacifists. Evolution is stupid. It does not create bodies with happiness in mind. Robert Wright has made the point that pleasures are designed to evaporate so that we keep pursuing them. Sex. Food. **** those games. I think Pinker said something to the effect, "My genes can go jump in a lake."

One of the Decoding the Gurus hosts paraphrased early Dawkins "our conscious selves are like a parasitic virus that invaded brains; we inhabit hosts, bending their biological substrate to our own fiendish desires, which is to do things like create art, and have nice non-dominating relationships with one another. Things that have nothing to do with evolution." And that's fantastic.

Brains could be a double-edged sword for evolution.

On the one hand, our brains have allowed us to become the dominant species on the planet (depending how you measure it maybe). But they can also override the basic paradigm of evolution.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Actually walking through a scenario where that certificate be demanded would show how incredibly rare that demand would be, but if it were demanded, it would simply be pulling the report out of the file. I'm not going to walk through it, because no one is actually interested. ST et. al. just want to create some fictitious nightmare scenario.

Sure, if "et. al." includes the Florida House of Representatives, who tried their damndest to make this "nightmare" scenario a reality.

If every student already has an exam, how would any "dispute" about gender arise? The law is opening the door for medical challenges for student athletes, explicitly so. Routine physicals check people for good general health and normally don't include declarations of gender. Best case scenario is that women (mostly ciswomen) will be denigrated by being demanded by right wing freaks and bullies to produce medical records proving they aren't too manly.

Hand-wave all you like, but penis inspections and blood draws is the logical conclusion for many transphobes.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Brains could be a double-edged sword for evolution.

On the one hand, our brains have allowed us to become the dominant species on the planet (depending how you measure it maybe). But they can also override the basic paradigm of evolution.

Temporarily, sure. But not long term - you can choose not to reproduce, but the people interested in reproducing will be the ones whose ancestors are around (& Yes, I think it's clear that some desire to reproduce is genetically encoded). EC wasn't making a moral statement - she was pointing out what is pretty much necessarily so.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, if "et. al." includes the Florida House of Representatives, who tried their damndest to make this "nightmare" scenario a reality.

If every student already has an exam, how would any "dispute" about gender arise? The law is opening the door for medical challenges for student athletes, explicitly so. Routine physicals check people for good general health and normally don't include declarations of gender. Best case scenario is that women (mostly ciswomen) will be denigrated by being demanded by right wing freaks and bullies to produce medical records proving they aren't too manly.

Hand-wave all you like, but penis inspections and blood draws is the logical conclusion for many transphobes.

(Emphasis added)

Start with that thought. That's exactly the key.

Of course, it would begin with an observation that one of the athletes on an opposing team looked a bit too manly to be a "real" girl. So what would happen next? I think the coach who suspected would ask the other student's coach. The coach would either confirm (unlikely) or deny (much more likely) the trans identity.

Now at that point, either the first coach would believe the second coach, or not. Only if the first coach believed that the second coach was covering it up would it go to an actual challenge. And how would that challenge be executed? The challenged athlete's coach would be asked to produce the certificate, which he has on file, showing the existence of a physical exam. And you are right that such exams don't normally include declarations of gender, if you are using the newspeak definition of "gender". However, every darned one of those exams includes a declaration of sex, which is what is at issue here. They will all say, "male" or "female".

And that's it. It's over. And the legislature knew that, which is why they specifically stated that a routine physical could be used as the certification of sex, because they knew that the routine physical exam was already a requirement for participation.

I haven't read through the detail of the law, beyond what you posted, but I think that it's probably written in such a way that the challenged student would usually never even know that a challenge had been made.


And that's why I said get back to me if there's ever a case where a student is subjected to a genital exam. I don't think it will ever happen. You called that "moving the goalposts", but it isn't. It's the core of the law.

If it turns out that it doesn't happen the way I expect it to happen, and the nightmares actually materialize, I'll join you in complaint, but I don't anticipate any genital inspections or blood draws, beyond what is already required as a condition of participation.

 

[Meadmaker]

Because it is all about definitions. I get that you view them as two separate kinds of freak and they need to be kept out for separate reasons in sports. But it all gets to what is the definition of girl or woman. I get that you don't like trans people or people with DSD getting classified as such.

Emphasis added.

Yes. I agree with the hilite.


The rest is just a personal attack.


Earlier, you said that we should just have "female" sports, instead of "girls" sports. I agree.

ETA: The post I was agreeing with is this one:

As long as they are banned from women's sport. Though I guess we should change it to female sports.

ETA2: And, the referent in "they" above is AIS people. I don't have an opinion on whether AIS individuals should be allowed to participate in female sports. The answer might be different at different levels. I'll leave the specific answer to those with more expertise than I. Sports federations are struggling with that issue now. The point is that female sports should be for females. I know that there are some people who are difficult to classify in that manner, but the cases which are making headlines in high schools are not difficult. They are males who identify as girls. Those people should be restricted to the male sports league, in my not very humble opinion.

 

[d4m10n]

I think it's worth pointing out that in many cultures and religions, the menstrual period has some taboos associated with it. Often it would be considered unclean or a process of cleansing and involved restrictions on activities that females were allowed to engage in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_and_menstruation

So glad you brought up this aspect of the problem. If you believe—as I do—that these taboos are worth tearing down for the sake of promoting the reproductive health and mental well-being of human females past the age of menarche, then you may conclude—as I have—that normalizing open talk about menstruation is a worthwhile pursuit. This doesn't mean we have to taboo using "women" as shorthand for people who have periods, but it does mean we don't need to taboo more accurate and less circumlocutionary terms like "menstruator."

I’m sure advertisers don’t seek to insult customers. That doesn’t mean that customers don’t feel insulted.

I don't believe it is rational or healthy to take offense where none was given.

That is often the way with PC language, though. It’s not always appreciated by the people it’s supposedly adopted on behalf of (see: Latinx).

Fair enough, but the argument against "Latinx" is that it doesn't conjugate and sounds awful in Spanish, not that it's dehumanizing or insulting. (It is a bit culturally imperialist, though, for Anglophones to tell Hispanics how to label ourselves.)

 

[Olmstead]

A simple physical is not going to weed out all the fakes who pass as girls like Semenya. You need more to keep them out.

You're being silly. There's always a balance between upholding rules and personal freedom and privacy. They can make requirements as non-intrusive as they want. If someone manages to cheat the system, so be it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If that is true, it is true because of prior usage and because the writers intended it to be taken as an insult. That's how language works, words gain meaning from how they are used.

I believe "TERF" is a slur b/c that's how it's generally used, to put people down and shut them up. I don't believe "menstruator" has a similar history, or that advertising agencies seek to insult potential customers.

They don't *seek* to insult... but it's still insulting to the vast majority of females.

Midol had a new ad campaign out online earlier this year, with they hypothetical message of 'eliminating period shame'. But throughout all of their ads, they referred to 'menstruators', never to 'women'. These ads were released on YouTube.

The overwhelming response was negative. From females.. who do not want to be referred to by advertisers as menstruators.

Midol wasn't trying to insult females. They were trying to be inclusive of 'I'm a MAN but I have periods' transmen, and to avoid 'this doesn't apply to me you're being insensitive' arguments from transwomen. They made the decision to cater to an insignificant portion of their client base, people who have periods but don't 'identify' as 'women'. They let that sliver of customers drive their messaging.

And in doing so, they denigrated and alienated the vast majority of people who use their products.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Evolution will also favor rapists over asexual pacifists.

Well of course it would favor rapists over asexual pacifists. Asexuals don't pass on their genes.

That said, it's a silly comparison of the endpoints. As evidenced by the development of society and known history... evolution favors pair-bonding in humans.

Sure, a male might 'spread their seed' by raping a bunch of females, but the likelihood of raping a random female during ovulation is about one in ten. Furthermore, there's no guarantee that even a female raped during ovulation will conceive, or will successfully deliver and not miscarry (about one in three conceptions miscarry in humans, usually very early), or that a successfully delivered offspring will live to sexual maturity. The whole point of the drive to reproduce is to sustain a gene line, which means the offspring needs to survive until they can pass on their genes too.

Given the long gestation time, as well as the extended childhood period before sexual maturity is attained... rape is not an evolutionarily optimal tactic. Pair-bonding, at least until the children are old enough to help care for themselves, is a much more effective strategy.