Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TomB]

This doesn't make sense. In the 90% of interactions where biology is irrelevant, gender is also irrelevant. The pro-trans side has so far been unable to articulate a definition of gender that makes it relevant in any interaction - especially any interaction where biology isn't relevant either.

That is where things like pronouns come in. Or treating someone like a lady (or like a guy). What that means of course, varies.

JoeMorgue makes the excellent point that he doesn't treat men and women differently. If his male friend suddenly declared to be a trans-woman, he would treat them the same. And it would be treating her like a woman. For him, there is no behavior modification required.

But most people make assumptions:
You walk into a party and see a group of women and a group of men conversing. You can make a guess which conversation topics are going to be most entertaining to you. You might be wrong, but you might make some assumptions. If you have an extra ticket to a Rush concert, and two acquaintances you'd like to hang out with, you are likely to assume the man will be more interested. (Though you might ask the woman first out of hope.) Lifetime targets movies based on what they think women value. (Yes, there's sex, but it's mostly romance.)

And yes, those examples are pretty superficial. What I really think people mean about being treated as their gender socially has a lot to do with just accepting them and not labeling them as freaks because you perceive a male body in woman's clothes.

Without a coherent definition of gender and its relevance, the pro-trans side is very much not "mostly correct". It's simply Not Even Wrong.

I think the problem is that gender is hard to define. We can give examples of gendered behaviors and gendered appearance but not gender itself. I think gender is an aspect of personality, which is itself difficult to directly quantify. (We can list behaviors and assign them to personality traits similar to gender.)

My brother (PhD Zoology) occasionally ribs his wife (M.S. Psychology or Social Work) about his being a hard science and hers a soft one. I'm a biologist, but I took enough Psychology to recognize important differences. Much less in psychology can be directly measured. You can't directly measure personality, intelligence, learning ability, or even mental disorders. I think you will find many different and conflicting definitions of intelligence. It's not firm. It's debatable. Asking for a firm definition of gender as a psychological thing is a difficult ask.

I'm not really sure it's as important as you think it is though, because you can't perceive or react to someone's gender. You can only perceive and react to someones actions, behavior, and presentation, which may or may not be reflective of their gender or some other aspect of their personality. I can't react to your self-image. I can only react to the image you show the outside world. you can only that someone in a way that matches with their presentation. (Which is something the pro-trans side needs to think about.)

That said, I think gender roles and eventually gendered presentation will evolve away. Clothing, hair, and makeup are becoming less gendered. (Or at least the means are moving closer together even if the extremes are not.) Careers and hobbies are overlapping more. And it's becoming more normal to have close non-romantic friendships between sexes. (Possibly because of less segregation of interests.) So I kind of see a gender-less future.

But we are not quite there yet. (Except for Joe.)

 

[Louden Wilde]

This doesn't make sense. In the 90% of interactions where biology is irrelevant, gender is also irrelevant. The pro-trans side has so far been unable to articulate a definition of gender that makes it relevant in any interaction - especially any interaction where biology isn't relevant either.

Without a coherent definition of gender and its relevance, the pro-trans side is very much not "mostly correct". It's simply Not Even Wrong.

Well put and better articulated than my response.

 

[Olmstead]

[...]

I think the problem is that gender is hard to define. We can give examples of gendered behaviors and gendered appearance but not gender itself. I think gender is an aspect of personality, which is itself difficult to directly quantify. (We can list behaviors and assign them to personality traits similar to gender.)

[...]

I disagree. I think it's very easy to define gender, though its definition will depend on what exact concept one has in mind. The real problem is that some people want a concept of gender that can explain why a transman is a man and a transwoman is a woman, but none of those definitions can do the job, which is why gender must remain nebulous.

 

[TomB]

This is an interesting bait and switch that I notice comes up from time to time. People are happy to imply that X is bad, as long as they're reasonably confident you won't or can't show that X is actually happening. And of course the won't say explicitly that X is bad, just in case it turns out X really is happening.

And if X actually happens it's an uncommon outlier.

Some of the arguments have been hyperbolic. But I fail to see why hyperbole is a problem, when used correctly. (I know this is a bit of a tangent from your post.)

South Park did an episode titled "Board Girls" that dealt with a male athlete (I think it was a parody of Macho Man Randy Savage) identifying as and competing as a woman. He (she?) completely dominated and humiliated the next closest competitor (Strong Woman). This of course created a crisis for Strong Woman and PC Principal (who lashed out) as they tried to reconcile their politics with the feeling of being cheated. (This led something something about "nuanced" positions.)

Now, obviously Randy Savage is not competing in "strongwoman" competitions. But it does illustrate the point that, without criteria, there is nothing that would stop him from doing so if he wanted. The point of the hyperbole was to pick something that obviously should not happen and illustrate that it could if there are no checks in place against it.

The point isn't that elite level males might declare themselves female to compete, but that it could happen at less extreme levels, and that it would still be unfair for the same reasons. It's a valid way to illustrate a point.

When I test programs I write, I don't leave in known bugs on the principal of "no one would do that" or "I'll fix it if it's a problem." Because whatever it is, someone will do it eventually. You address problems before they happen.

 

[TomB]

I disagree. I think it's very easy to define gender, though its definition will depend on what exact concept one has in mind. The real problem is that some people want a concept of gender that can explain why a transman is a man and a transwoman is a woman, but none of those definitions can do the job, which is why gender must remain nebulous.

Sure they can. But just like definitions of intelligence, they fall apart when applied in a different context.

There are plenty of definitions, but none of them are universal.

 

[Olmstead]

Sure they can. But just like definitions of intelligence, they fall apart when applied in a different context.

There are plenty of definitions, but none of them are universal.

You're welcome to provide one that can.

A definition for "woman" or "female gender" that covers every cis-woman, regardless of her behaviour, and every transwoman, regardless of her behaviour.

Just don't make it circular.

 

[TomB]

A definition of gender:

Definition of gender

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a : a subclass within a grammatical class (such as noun, pronoun, adjective, or verb) of a language that is partly arbitrary but also partly based on distinguishable characteristics (such as shape, social rank, manner of existence, or sex) and that determines agreement with and selection of other words or grammatical forms
b : membership of a word or a grammatical form in such a subclass
c : an inflectional form (see inflection sense 2a) showing membership in such a subclass
2a : sex sense 1a the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sexc : gender identity Those seeking state driver's licenses in Massachusetts are closer to being able to designate their gender as "X" instead of "male" or "female." The state Senate has overwhelmingly approved a bill that would allow for the nonbinary designation on licenses.— Steve LeBlanc Facebook's message was clear when the social media network added new gender options for users on Thursday: the company is sensitive to a wide spectrum of gender identity and wants users to feel accommodated no matter where they see themselves on that spectrum.— Katy Steinmetz

Are gender and sex the same? Usage Guide

Noun

The words sex and gender have a long and intertwined history. In the 15th century gender expanded from its use as a term for a grammatical subclass to join sex in referring to either of the two primary biological forms of a species, a meaning sex has had since the 14th century; phrases like "the male sex" and "the female gender" are both grounded in uses established for more than five centuries. In the 20th century sex and gender each acquired new uses. Sex developed its "sexual intercourse" meaning in the early part of the century (now its more common meaning), and a few decades later gender gained a meaning referring to the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex, as in "gender roles." Later in the century, gender also came to have application in two closely related compound terms: gender identity refers to a person's internal sense of being male, female, some combination of male and female, or neither male nor female; gender expression refers to the physical and behavioral manifestations of one's gender identity. By the end of the century gender by itself was being used as a synonym of gender identity.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

I think this is a workable definition. (Note the reference to psychology.) My paraphrase would be on the line of how one's psychological and behavioral traits match up with cultural expectations.

I would comment that by this definition gender is an ephemeral concept in that it is dependent on differential cultural associations of characteristics between sexes. And those change over time and, in some possible futures, could disappear entirely. Yes, it's linked to sex. I don't consider it circular.

I consider it a personality trait, subject to the same debate and conjecture as other personality traits: heritable? nature vs. nurture? etc.

 

[Olmstead]

A definition of gender:




https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

I think this is a workable definition. (Note the reference to psychology.) My paraphrase would be on the line of how one's psychological and behavioral traits match up with cultural expectations.

I would comment that by this definition gender is an ephemeral concept in that it is dependent on differential cultural associations of characteristics between sexes. And those change over time and, in some possible futures, could disappear entirely. Yes, it's linked to sex. I don't consider it circular.

I consider it a personality trait, subject to the same debate and conjecture as other personality traits: heritable? nature vs. nurture? etc.

That would make a cis-woman whose psychological and behavioral traits don't match up with cultural expectations a man, no?

 

[TomB]

You're welcome to provide one that can.

A definition for "woman" or "female gender" that covers every cis-woman, regardless of her behaviour, and every transwoman, regardless of her behaviour.

Just don't make it circular.

Did you read the last line of my post?

Apparently not.

I just posted the Webster's definition and a bit of the discussion on the subject, by the way.

If you want a definition of "woman" try:
A person whose behavioral and psychological characteristics best match with the expectations their culture generally associates with the female sex.

 

[theprestige]

A definition of gender:




https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender

I think this is a workable definition. (Note the reference to psychology.) My paraphrase would be on the line of how one's psychological and behavioral traits match up with cultural expectations.

I would comment that by this definition gender is an ephemeral concept in that it is dependent on differential cultural associations of characteristics between sexes. And those change over time and, in some possible futures, could disappear entirely. Yes, it's linked to sex. I don't consider it circular.

I consider it a personality trait, subject to the same debate and conjecture as other personality traits: heritable? nature vs. nurture? etc.

This is regressive, though. We've made a lot of progress towards deprecating gender stereotypes as social expectations. A man can wear dresses. A woman can wear pants. Expectations for housing, employment, etc. are based on a person's qualities as a human, not their qualities as one sex or the other.

Except where sex is concerned, gender identity has no more meaning or practical application than a fursona.

 

[Olmstead]

Did you read the last line of my post?

Apparently not.

I just posted the Webster's definition and a bit of the discussion on the subject, by the way.

If you want a definition of "woman" try:
A person whose behavioral and psychological characteristics best match with the expectations their culture generally associates with the female sex.

The universal thing? That's not how it works. You can't decide that a transwoman is a woman based on one definition, but a cis-woman is a woman based on a completely different definition. If that's your plan, anything can be anything.

 

[theprestige]

A person whose behavioral and psychological characteristics best match with the expectations their culture generally associates with the female sex.

Except that our culture has been working very hard to abolish sexist stereotypes about women, and to deprecate the expectations generally associated with the female sex.

We've made so much progress on this issue that today's transwomen cannot even articulate what those expecations actually are, or whether women generally conform to them. At best they can do what you're doing: handwave at vague generalizations that lack practical meaning.

What does it meant to behave like a woman? Be subservient to men? A lot of women reject that, even as a personal choice for other women. And why can't a man also choose or prefer subservience to other men? I'm sure some do. Do you think such men are less men, and more women, because of it?

Is a woman supposed to be a homemaker? I'm pretty sure that's not it.

Is a woman supposed to put up with a glass ceiling in employment? I'm pretty sure that's not it either.

Is a woman supposed to inspire sexual attraction in heterosexual men and homosexual women? That's sex, not gender.

You can cite the dictionary all you want. The truth is that none of your dictionary definitions have any practical application, nor any meaningful interpretation for public policy.

 

[TomB]

That would make a cis-woman whose psychological and behavioral traits don't match up with cultural expectations a man, no?

This is where it gets complicated. If you drew a Venn diagram of traits there would be a massive overlap. A key portion psychologically is self-perception. Which is consistent with dysphoria.

1) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a woman is a woman.

2) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a man likely has gender dysphoria for which transitioning may be the appropriate treatment.

Note that 1 would be a cis-woman and 2 would be a trans-man. Or at least would be if he transitions. (It's another argument as to whether the term trans is applicable before transition or if trans is indicative of the transition itself.)

 

[Olmstead]

This is where it gets complicated. If you drew a Venn diagram of traits there would be a massive overlap. A key portion psychologically is self-perception. Which is consistent with dysphoria.

1) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a woman is a woman.

2) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a man likely has gender dysphoria for which transitioning may be the appropriate treatment.

Note that 1 would be a cis-woman and 2 would be a trans-man. Or at least would be if he transitions. (It's another argument as to whether the term trans is applicable before transition or if trans is indicative of the transition itself.)

And this is where the definition becomes circular:


What's a woman?

A woman is a person who perceives herself as a woman.

What's a woman?

A woman is a person who perceives herself as a woman.

What's a woman?

A woman is a person who perceives herself as a woman.

AGHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

 

[theprestige]

This is where it gets complicated. If you drew a Venn diagram of traits there would be a massive overlap. A key portion psychologically is self-perception. Which is consistent with dysphoria.

1) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a woman is a woman.

2) A Tomboy who perceives herself as a man likely has gender dysphoria for which transitioning may be the appropriate treatment.

Okay, sure. Now translate this into your public policy recommendations for trans inclusion and accommodation.

Do you think a woman who perceives herself as a man should get diagnosed and treated for dysphoria?

Do you think a woman who perceives herself as a man should get her preferred pronouns?

Do you think a woman who claims to perceive herself as a man, but refuses to obtain a diagnosis of dysphoria should be accommodated "as a man" in any way?

Do you think a woman who perceives herself as a man should be perceived as a man by anyone else?

 

[theprestige]

This is where it gets complicated. If you drew a Venn diagram of traits there would be a massive overlap. A key portion psychologically is self-perception. Which is consistent with dysphoria.

The Venn diagram has so much overlap as to make the concept almost entirely useless.

If the key is self-perception, then absent a diagnosis of an actual disorder that calls for treatment rather than enablement, gender identity is on par with fursonas: They're a personal affectation of interest only to that person and like-minded individuals. There's no burden placed on society or the government to offer them anything more than common courtesy as people no matter how strange their personal beliefs.

 

[TomB]

This is regressive, though. We've made a lot of progress towards deprecating gender stereotypes as social expectations. A man can wear dresses. A woman can wear pants. Expectations for housing, employment, etc. are based on a person's qualities as a human, not their qualities as one sex or the other.

Except where sex is concerned, gender identity has no more meaning or practical application than a fursona.

No. It's not regressive. It's reflective of a particular cultural snapshot in time.

We are (and I'm supportive of) fighting against those stereotypes, but they still exist. A gender-free society may be a goal, but we are not there.

Let me be clear, as a biologist, I'm fairly confident that there is no "wears dresses and makeup" gene. If the cultural expectation for females to dye their skin green and wear capes, trans-women would dye their skin green and wear capes. That presentation is just an expression of where their head says they fit. (My guess is that's why a lot of the trans-women I've seen tend to go hyper-feminine in their dress. They don't want to be ambiguous. But that's just speculation.)

As gender roles and expectations...the stereotypes associated with each sex...are torn down and disappear, external signs of gender will also disappear. I'm not sure of the implications for trans people. Will it make transitioning unnecessary? Will it prevent their dysphoria from being triggered? Or will it make full surgical transition the only option?

At least on the surface, it does place trans-genderism (or at least trans-women) in an adversarial position with at least some strains of feminism.

 

[theprestige]

No. It's not regressive. It's reflective of a particular cultural snapshot in time.

We are (and I'm supportive of) fighting against those stereotypes, but they still exist. A gender-free society may be a goal, but we are not there.

Even trans-activists won't articulate the gender stereotypes they think the rest of us should be applying to transwomen. Again, you're appealing to vague and deprecated generalities. They have no practical application. And whatever practical application they may have had, transwomen would be the first to tell you they don't want it applied to them.

The only "practical" application of gender identity is pronouns. Which is silly. If a man can wear a dress and be a homemaker, why can't he go by "she/her" if he wants, without having to claim he (she?) is a woman?

Other than pronouns, every other practical application is sex-based, not gender-based.

 

[theprestige]

If the cultural expectation for females to dye their skin green and wear capes, trans-women would dye their skin green and wear capes.

Would they? I'm not so sure. A lot of women reject society's gendered expectations, and flout them. A lot of transwomen do as well.

A hundred years ago, when the gender divide was much clearer, and the social expectations for women tended to reinforce their status as second-class citizens, it might have been different. We might have seen a faction of feminists fighting to abolish these harmful stereotypes. And a faction of transwomen fighting to uphold those stereotypes and assert their right to step down into second-class citizenship.

But the feminists have largely won their fight. The stereotypes are vestigial and deprecated - even by transwomen! All that's left to fight over are pronouns and an assortment of sex-segregation issues.

 

[d4m10n]

A definition for "woman" or "female gender" that covers every cis-woman, regardless of her behaviour, and every transwoman, regardless of her behaviour.

Woman: An adult who who finds themselves subjected to the social norms of femininity, whether voluntarily or not.