Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Olmstead]

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.

There's only one scenario in which your concept of gender could apply to transgender people: a person who cannot fulfil social and cultural norms transitions in order to change the social and cultural norms that they need to adhere to.

If that isn't the case, then the "transgender gender" needs to be something else.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And yet again we're so far in the weeds that nobody is actually saying anything.

Again I ask... why? To what point and what purpose does any of this serve?

And I'm asking for an answer not yet another vague, mush-mouthed mumble about "it's complicated" or some factor that doesn't exist outside the mind of one person.

"I am an X that identifies as a Y" (or any similar variation.) Okay. What information is that supposed to convey to me? What adjustment to my actions am I supposed to make?

These are not unreasonable or unclear questions.

 

[theprestige]

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

Because it does communicate X. In an attempt to pander to one demographic, the advertiser accidentally stepped into deprecation of another demographic. The deprecated people shouldn't be barred from calling that out, or asking it to stop, just because the advertiser swears they didn't do it on purpose.

There's literally no other aspect of human interaction where you're not allowed to call out the harm from a mistake, and call for measures against such mistakes in the future, simply because it was a mistake. Many areas of human endeavor actually go the opposite direction: Making a really big deal about finding mistakes, cataloging their harm, and working to prevent them.

 

[Louden Wilde]

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. 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.

I'm in that same camp.

To be clear, the Rachel Levine claim is blatantly false. Vivek Murthy (US Surgeon General) announced Levine, a TW, as the first female four-star admiral- a claim repeated by NPR and on Levine's wikipedia page.

Something to keep in mind when you see the "no one's saying you can change sex" argument...

 

[JoeMorgue]

Because the language has been hate ****** to the point every word means everything and nothing.

 

[theprestige]

Something to keep in mind when you see the "no one's saying you can change sex" argument...

And the "only a few inconsequential extremists are saying you can change sex, it's not a mainstream public policy thing" argument...

 

[theprestige]

Because the language has been hate ****** to the point every word means everything and nothing.

ME: We need to do better at accepting trans people into society and making them feel welcome.

THEM: Great! As a true ally to the cause, please join us out back behind the dumpster, where we'll be raping language until it learns to like it and begs us for more.

ME: On second thought, I'm out.

THEM: Transphobe!

 

[JoeMorgue]

The actual question was clearly laid out 7 pages and several years ago.

Side 1. I am uncomfortable sharing spaces with individuals who posses a penis.
Side 2. Genital structure is not the sole determiner of (insert some word/phrase for gender/sex/gender role term never really clarified, never used consistently, and constantly)

See? The question is piss simple. Nothing has really advanced beyond that.

When then got to watch 5 bazillion pages of both sides not answering the other sides question.

 

[Meadmaker]

And yet again we're so far in the weeds that nobody is actually saying anything.

Again I ask... why? To what point and what purpose does any of this serve?

And I'm asking for an answer not yet another vague, mush-mouthed mumble about "it's complicated" or some factor that doesn't exist outside the mind of one person.

"I am an X that identifies as a Y" (or any similar variation.) Okay. What information is that supposed to convey to me? What adjustment to my actions am I supposed to make?

These are not unreasonable or unclear questions.

For the trans-inclusive side, I think the value of X plays no role. You should treat all people with the same value of Y identically. So, if someone asks you "Where is the restroom?", If the value of Y is "woman", you should point them to the ladies' room. If they wish to play basketball, you should help them sign up for the women's team, regardless of the value of X.

ETA: the above was from what I think the trans-inclusive view would be. If I have misrepresented anything, I welcome correction. In my own personal view, I think the value of X is often important, and should dominate in the examples I gave.

 

[theprestige]

The actual question was clearly laid out 7 pages and several years ago.

Side 1. I am uncomfortable sharing spaces with individuals who posses a penis.
Side 2. Genital structure is not the sole determiner of (insert some word/phrase for gender/sex/gender role term never really clarified, never used consistently, and constantly)

See? The question is piss simple. Nothing has really advanced beyond that.

When then got to watch 5 bazillion pages of both sides not answering the other sides question.

That is a really good, succinct description of the issue. One nice thing about it is that it makes it clear why Side 1 won't answer Side 2's question: The question is so ill-defined that they literally can't.

 

[llwyd]

The actual question was clearly laid out 7 pages and several years ago.

Side 1. I am uncomfortable sharing spaces with individuals who posses a penis.
Side 2. Genital structure is not the sole determiner of (insert some word/phrase for gender/sex/gender role term never really clarified, never used consistently, and constantly)

See? The question is piss simple. Nothing has really advanced beyond that.

Really, those are the sides? I guess I am opting out then. For me the issue is gender dysphoria (a recognized medical condition) and the community of people who have that condition and who have been brutally hounded throughout history (and even at this moment are being hounded in many primitive societies). It is mainly totally not about changing rooms and sports in connection with people who merely self-identify without any other single step taken towards transition.

 

[Louden Wilde]

That is a really good, succinct description of the issue. One nice thing about it is that it makes it clear why Side 1 won't answer Side 2's question: The question is so ill-defined that they literally can't.

The succinct question I still want answered is:

Why do you think gender/gender ID* is (generally) more important than sex?

Corollaries:

Do you mean to say that any/all female-only spaces, healthcare, representation/scholarships, activities (etc.) are discriminatory towards transwomen?

Do you agree that females are oppressed on the basis of their sex or not?


*ETA - And to be clear, gender ID is the set of sex-associated stereotypes you prefer

 

[Louden Wilde]

The actual question was clearly laid out 7 pages and several years ago.

Side 1. I am uncomfortable sharing spaces with individuals who posses a penis.
Side 2. Genital structure is not the sole determiner of (insert some word/phrase for gender/sex/gender role term never really clarified, never used consistently, and constantly)

See? The question is piss simple. Nothing has really advanced beyond that.

When then got to watch 5 bazillion pages of both sides not answering the other sides question.

What questions have those of us who might be termed "gender critical" not answered (or answered adequately) from your POV?

 

[Meadmaker]

It is mainly totally not about changing rooms and sports in connection with people who merely self-identify without any other single step taken towards transition.

For you? Maybe not. For the rest of us? Mainly.

ETA: at the very least, take that off the table and the conversation would be totally different.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Really, those are the sides? I guess I am opting out then. For me the issue is gender dysphoria (a recognized medical condition) and the community of people who have that condition and who have been brutally hounded throughout history (and even at this moment are being hounded in many primitive societies). It is mainly totally not about changing rooms and sports in connection with people who merely self-identify without any other single step taken towards transition.

But as a number of us have noted, the current movement is definitely not (just) about people with gender dysphoria - indeed that view is widely rejected by the current movement.

 

[theprestige]

Really, those are the sides? I guess I am opting out then. For me the issue is gender dysphoria (a recognized medical condition) and the community of people who have that condition and who have been brutally hounded throughout history (and even at this moment are being hounded in many primitive societies). It is mainly totally not about changing rooms and sports in connection with people who merely self-identify without any other single step taken towards transition.

It's unfortunate you haven't been following this thread from the beginning. It covers a lot of ground, and catching up at this point is going to be very difficult.

The narrow focus on gender dysphoria has already been rejected by the trans-inclusionary side of the debate here. The premise that transgenderism is defined by a medical diagnosis rather than by fiat self-ID has been similarly rejected. The premise that people have historically been oppressed for deviating from gender norms has been addressed: Nobody in this thread is in favor of it. Most are happy that it's going away.

 

[Meadmaker]

Llwyd,

Remember this exchange?

In other words, you're a bigot.


Seriously. The orthodox trans inclusive position is that self ID is the only requirement. LondonJohn? SuburbanTurkey? Am I misrepresenting something here? (Special note to LondonJohn: Llwyd is referring to all levels of sports, not just "elite level") I mean, perhaps you might not call him bigoted, at least at this time, but his position? Do your positions, and the positions of trans rights advocates in general, agree with Llwyd's position?

Lllwyd, your position is based on common sense. It doesn't fit with the party line, though. See previous post.

Did you notice no one answered?

In all seriousness, your positions have been called bigoted, repeatedly, throughout the thread.

Self ID really is the battleground here.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Really, those are the sides? I guess I am opting out then. For me the issue is gender dysphoria (a recognized medical condition) and the community of people who have that condition and who have been brutally hounded throughout history (and even at this moment are being hounded in many primitive societies). It is mainly totally not about changing rooms and sports in connection with people who merely self-identify without any other single step taken towards transition.

No I'm saying those are the only two meaningful... errr stances I guess (something like that) that have really been put on the table. And there's about a billion "sides" arguing a lot of stuff that isn't either of those.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What questions have those of us who might be termed "gender critical" not answered (or answered adequately) from your POV?

Not playing this game. Not playing the "Oh I'm sorry could you stop the discussion and start it over from the beginning repeating things you've already said so I can pretend not to hear them again?" game.

Go argue about whether water is wet or not with Bob if that's what you're going to do.

STOP PRETENDING PEOPLE HAVEN'T MADE THEIR ARGUMENT YET.

 

[TomB]

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

There are a number of terms which, while descriptive, have derogatory connotations, despite not being intended as an insult in their original contexts: "mentally retarded" is an example. "Abnormal" is another. Also "disabled."

As I said before, menstruation, besides being something that most of the women I know consider unpleasant, has been thrown as insults: "must be that time of the month!" "She must be on the rag." etc. So referring to a person with even a technical term might not be perceived as all sunshine and rainbows.

Personally, I think a better gender neutral term for people who are likely to need tampons is "female" because it refers to sex, not gender. Or at least it's supposed to. It seems that the term, though accurate and not intended to be offensive, might make some trans-women uncomfortable.

The main problem I personally have with "menstruators" is not that it offends me (but I'm male...) but I consider it an awkward word to say.

Now, I agree with you that the taboos and negativity associated with a body process should go away. But you can't make that happen by rubbing peoples noses in the term. You and I can think it's silly for people to be offended by a particular word in context, but we don't get to dictate that. A major part of communication is to consider not only if your word choice represents your meaning, but also if the people hearing those words derive the same meaning as what you intended. In other words, consider your audience when writing your speech. It's not just intention that's important, but perception.