Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

I think some advertising agencies must be relying on echo chambers rather than actual market research. Midol's campaign really seems like it was based on the assumption that trans-acceptance was a paramount social issue with significant support from (cis)women, and that getting on the right side of history would sell more product.

Personally I'm reminded of xkcd's economic argument against paranormal phenomena: Nothing says being on the "right" side of history like selling more product. History is the story of what people wanted, and what people did. It's kind of hard to be on the wrong side of that, if you just follow along wherever people are voting with the feet and their wallets.

It looks like Midol mistook the outcry of a vocal minority for an actual majority vote of public opinion.

 

[d4m10n]

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

I'm going to assume you are referring to survey data here, since it's a fairly strong claim. Can we get a link?

I think some advertising agencies must be relying on echo chambers rather than actual market research. Midol's campaign really seems like it was based on the assumption that trans-acceptance was a paramount social issue with significant support from (cis)women, and that getting on the right side of history would sell more product.

Do we have any survey data or even focus group data on this? On both sides of these much discussed issues, I am skeptical that pushback from a vocal minority is a sensible proxy for general feeling.

 

[LondonJohn]

I think some advertising agencies must be relying on echo chambers rather than actual market research. Midol's campaign really seems like it was based on the assumption that trans-acceptance was a paramount social issue with significant support from (cis)women, and that getting on the right side of history would sell more product.

Personally I'm reminded of xkcd's economic argument against paranormal phenomena: Nothing says being on the "right" side of history like selling more product. History is the story of what people wanted, and what people did. It's kind of hard to be on the wrong side of that, if you just follow along wherever people are voting with the feet and their wallets.

It looks like Midol mistook the outcry of a vocal minority for an actual majority vote of public opinion.

Yes, I'm sure Midol and its advertising agency are that stupid and ill-informed. And I'm sure they - the agency in particular - don't spend an awful lot of time and effort (including commissioning data & insights from decent market research companies) in order to understand - as well as they possibly can - what certain customer segments think and what they want.

After all, it's not as if their (the agency in particular) very business depends on this, is it?




(Oh, and has this given you even a moment's pause to wonder whether it's in fact you who's on the wrong side of history here...?)

 

[theprestige]

Yes, I'm sure Midol and its advertising agency are that stupid and ill-informed. And I'm sure they - the agency in particular - don't spend an awful lot of time and effort (including commissioning data & insights from decent market research companies) in order to understand - as well as they possibly can - what certain customer segments think and what they want.

After all, it's not as if their (the agency in particular) very business depends on this, is it?

: rolleyes :

And yet businesses - even big ones - do sometimes embark on ill-advised advertising campaigns and make ill-considered marketing decisions.

I don't think blind faith in the alleged rational processes of advertising agencies and corporate executives is a very sound position. I see this kind of thing a lot in trans-activism, actually. There must be really good science, and a solid scientific consensus, about what transgenderism is and what society needs to do about it, right? Wrong. Turns out there's not much good science, a lot of the good science contests the activist claims, and public policy is mostly driven by vocal activists and ignorant pandering politicians than by any sound scientific reasoning.

(Oh, and has this given you even a moment's pause to wonder whether it's in fact you who's on the wrong side of history here...?)

(Has your appeal to the authority of advertising agencies given me pause about being on the wrong side of history? No it has not.

Being on the right side of history isn't really a big concern of mine. I'll use it for rhetorical purposes in conversations with people who do take it seriously, but I don't take it seriously myself. As far as I'm concerned, it's just an appeal to popularity with delusions of grandeur.)

 

[Louden Wilde]

I'm going to assume you are referring to survey data here, since it's a fairly strong claim. Can we get a link?

Do we have any survey data or even focus group data on this? On both sides of these much discussed issues, I am skeptical that pushback from a vocal minority is a sensible proxy for general feeling.

I think it would very much depend on how the question is framed (as is true with so many surveys). More broadly, It does seem clear that the women's ire over the word to describe themselves being taken away is growing- see that column in the NYT - I linked to here

Meaning - it's not just being described as a 'menstruater' or 'cervix-haver'- it's also that the word woman is becoming taboo.

And there seemed to be broad disgust with that post saying that Rachel Levine was the first female of that rank. I think more women are realizing they shouldn't cede the word woman.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think it would very much depend on how the question is framed (as is true with so many surveys). More broadly, It does seem clear that the women's ire over the word to describe themselves being taken away is growing- see that column in the NYT - I linked to here

Meaning - it's not just being described as a 'menstruater' or 'cervix-haver'- it's also that the word woman is becoming taboo.

And there seemed to be broad disgust with that post saying that Rachel Levine was the first female of that rank. I think more women are realizing they shouldn't cede the word woman.

I read this post and thought about Helen Reddy.

Somehow, I don't think any of the possible updates to her most famous song would carry the same power as the original.

 

[theprestige]

Do we have any survey data or even focus group data on this? On both sides of these much discussed issues, I am skeptical that pushback from a vocal minority is a sensible proxy for general feeling.

I'm arguing from the premise. If the premise turns out to be false, I'll have to dismiss the argument. None of the ideas I'm currently developing in this thread require proving the premise to you. So I respectfully decline.

 

[Cain]

EC wasn't making a moral statement - she was pointing out what is pretty much necessarily so.

The context was an "ideal" world, so, yes, she's carrying -- trying to carry -- a lot of moral baggage.

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

Asexuals can be raped.

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.

That non-rape strategies are optimal is rather beside the point in the moral context. It's also beside the point for what you're attempting to argue because organisms are not wedded to a single strategy. Males can form a pair bond AND rape. In fact, they do.

 

[d4m10n]

It does seem clear that the women's ire over the word to describe themselves being taken away is growing- see that column in the NYT - I linked to here

Agreed, this is how it seems to me as well.

Meaning - it's not just being described as a 'menstruater' or 'cervix-haver'- it's also that the word woman is becoming taboo.

There are at least three camps here.

1) People who hope to taboo and replace "women" with terms like "pregnant people" or "people with periods" or "menstruators" or "ovulators" or what-have-you

2) People who hope to taboo the aforementioned neologisms instead

3) People who aren't particularly keen on tabooing words, especially as a shortcut to win a political or cultural argument

I'm in the third of these camps, pretty much of the time, and I've not seen a good argument for switching allegiances this time.

And there seemed to be broad disgust with that post saying that Rachel Levine was the first female of that rank.

Don't know if that's true, but could easily list a hundred things I personally find disgusting which people should be perfectly free to do.

 

[Lithrael]

Asexuals can be raped.

That non-rape strategies are optimal is rather beside the point in the moral context. It's also beside the point for what you're attempting to argue because organisms are not wedded to a single strategy. Males can form a pair bond AND rape. In fact, they do.

Asexuals also can and traditionally do grit their teeth and bear it. Gays too. Which seems to me to be a strong point in favor of the idea that one of the options on the human table is the social or other payoff of the pair bond overriding sexual preference. Whether that’s good or bad or a mix, it definitely happens.

ETA: removed tangential derail

 

[p0lka]

Whereas I'd say the terms meant exactly the same thing until "gender" was co-opted by "non binary" people in the past 40 years or so.

I use quotation marks, because beyond the very few intersex and other aberrations, the entire trans community is based on feelings rather than genetics or any physical condition. Or common sense, for that matter.

I don't think 'co-opted' is a fair description.

Some societies expect behaviour according to the sex. Some people don't behave according to their sex.
That difference is the variable that can be defined as gender.

It's not a new thing as it's been around forever, it's just been more clearly defined and accepted nowadays.

edit: just realised I'm 4 pages behind, don't reply to this out of date post.

 

[llwyd]

Some societies expect behaviour according to the sex. Some people don't behave according to their sex.
That difference is the variable that can be defined as gender.

This is a nice and concise way of putting it. But I would also say that this expected behaviour (and expected self-ideation) according to biological sex is also pretty much a part of the concept of gender - these expectations vary radically from culture and era to another, and can be very irrational and have not much at all to do with biology.

We have the undisputed fact of biological sexes and then we have very varied cultural and social norms and beliefs that rise from that fact. The existence of two biological sexes is an objective fact but that doesn't mean that these cultural norms and meanings that follow would be objective too. In fact it's blatantly obvious that in many cases they are anything but.

I have never understood those who think that "gender" would be a superfluous and/or meaningless concept as it's such a self-evidently useful distinction to make.

 

[Darat]

This appears to be for some members a very emotive and personal topic however you must keep to your Membership Agreement so stop personalising the discussion.

As ever having your opinions or your claims challenged is not a personal attack and if you make yourself a topic of discussion then that may be addressed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[Reformed Offlian]

All of the examples I provided reduce people to a single role or function (e.g. lighting fires, donating sperm) but I wouldn't say any of them are unnecessarily reductive if you're trying to pick out a specific attribute.

I suspect there is something else going on here, something to do with the feeling of embarrassment people experience when discussing things they do in private.

"Sperm donor" actually is quite insulting, and I've heard it deliberately used as such, when it is used presumptively about men in general. I think "menstruator" or some other such term, falls in very much the same category.

Also, you aren't actually lecturing somebody that they shouldn't take offense at a term, are you?

 

[Olmstead]

This is a nice and concise way of putting it. But I would also say that this expected behaviour (and expected self-ideation) according to biological sex is also pretty much a part of the concept of gender - these expectations vary radically from culture and era to another, and can be very irrational and have not much at all to do with biology.

We have the undisputed fact of biological sexes and then we have very varied cultural and social norms and beliefs that rise from that fact. The existence of two biological sexes is an objective fact but that doesn't mean that these cultural norms and meanings that follow would be objective too. In fact it's blatantly obvious that in many cases they are anything but.

I have never understood those who think that "gender" would be a superfluous and/or meaningless concept as it's such a self-evidently useful distinction to make.

That's great. It's also not the definition of gender that is used in the context of transgender people and therefore completely meaningless for this topic.

 

[d4m10n]

Also, you aren't actually lecturing somebody that they shouldn't take offense at a term, are you?

No, I'm refusing to concede that the term was intended to dehumanize or give offense in the first place.

"Sperm donor" actually is quite insulting, and I've heard it deliberately used as such, when it is used presumptively about men in general.

I've yet to see this phrase applied to human males generally.

 

[Lithrael]

“Sperm donor” as a disparaging term is usually used to refer to an absent or insufficiently participating father. Sometimes, a father the mother wishes was out of the picture.

I can picture it being used as a general disparagement of men on a message board full of divorcees or grumpy lesbians or something, but I haven’t been there myself.

To match a term for ‘menstruators’ as in people who might want to wear pantyliners, maybe ‘spermatogenitors’ as in people who might want to wear condoms? It does have the disadvantage of not really actually being a word though.

The language is silly sure but there you go.

 

[theprestige]

No, I'm refusing to concede that the term was intended to dehumanize or give offense in the first place.

Nobody was claiming that.

 

[llwyd]

That's great. It's also not the definition of gender that is used in the context of transgender people and therefore completely meaningless for this topic.

Well, my, that was quite a touchy response... Anyway, I think that the overall concept of gender is very important and meaningful in the context of the debate, and I am bit doubtful as to the veracity of your very sweeping statement to the contrary.

 

[d4m10n]

Nobody was claiming that.

If it wasn't intended to communicate X why say it does?