Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TomB]

Slight side bar... but relevant overall to some of this thread.

We're evolved to categorize male/female. Eons of evolution have instilled in us the ability to identify "potential mate" from "potential competitor". I doubt that is ever going to change. Or if it does, it's likely to result in the extinction of our species.

Which leads me to another point. Blair White is quite convincing. As is Laverne Cox. Both of them have had extensive surgery - including facial feminization surgeries to remove masculine facial characteristics and make them appear more feminine. IIRC, they've both also had full vaginoplasties. They would be be considered transsexuals by prior understanding.

Blaire White has not had bottom surgery.

She has a video explaining why she doesn’t plan to do so.

 

[theprestige]

Blaire White has not had bottom surgery.

She has a video explaining why she doesn’t plan to do so.

In your opinion, is she a "she" in any sense other than common courtesy with preferred pronouns?

I keep forgetting about Emily Cat's really excellent question, which should perhaps get more emphasis and attention (and hopefully coherent answers):

"What does a transwoman have in common with human females, that they do NOT have in common with human males?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Blaire White has not had bottom surgery.

She has a video explaining why she doesn’t plan to do so.

I stand corrected, I thought they had.

 

[d4m10n]

"What does a transwoman have in common with human females, that they do NOT have in common with human males?"

Considering that some human females are trans men, this feels like an unanswerable question.

If trans women have something in common with cis women, it's having to deal with a certain set of social norms around femininity.

 

[TomB]

Gender Dysphoria *is* Gender Identity Disorder. It was renamed in DSM-V and removed from the category for sexual disorders.

Contrary to the claims made by LondonJohn, the reasons for this are not because experts realized that it's a 'valid lived condition'. It's actually two-fold. One of the reasons was to reduce the stigma associated with the diagnosis.

The other reason was because dysphoria is not, in and of itself, a condition. It's a symptom, and it may be the expression of a great many underlying disorders. It can be an express of trauma, prior childhood abuse, discomfort with a changing pubertal body, delay in forming romantic and sexual bonds (common with both autism spectrum disorders and ADHD), and a host of other anxiety/depression disorders that are common in teenagers. It can also be an expression of the still-in-DSM-V Transvestic Disorder with Autogynephilia.

There's a reason I used lower case and the word "generic." I'm not referring to the old DSM definition. what I'm saying is that, as of now, dysphoria is the only condition I am aware of that applies. But I'm not going to go out on a limb and say that there is not another for which transitioning is appropriate. I can't conceive of what that would be, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[theprestige]

If trans women have something in common with cis women, it's having to deal with a certain set of social norms around femininity.

That's something they have in common with men, too. In the immortal words of Bob Seger:

Most times you can't hear 'em talk
Other times you can
All the same old cliches
"Is that a woman or a man?"

 

[d4m10n]

That's something they have in common with men, too.

In what way do (cis or trans) men have to deal with the norms of femininity? I'd be interested in a non-lyrical answer.

 

[TomB]

In your opinion, is she a "she" in any sense other than common courtesy with preferred pronouns?

Yes. Despite not having bottom surgery, she has quite clearly committed to her transition and living as a woman.

As for functional genitals, I don't know, but she has been on hormones a long time. There was a period a couple years ago where she spoke of going off the hormones for a period in order to preserve sperm to have children in the future.

I don't see a problem with her as a woman in most cases. But then her behavior is such that she doesn't abuse the situation. She doesn't change at the gym, for example, not because she feels she shouldn't but because she knows that her appearance may make others uncomfortable. Honestly, I think that would be the case in either changing room.

The point is that she is cognizant of how her behavior and presence affect the people around her.

I keep forgetting about Emily Cat's really excellent question, which should perhaps get more emphasis and attention (and hopefully coherent answers):

"What does a transwoman have in common with human females, that they do NOT have in common with human males?"

This is an unanswerable question. And that's largely because we are talking about psychology which, as I've mentioned is very hard to directly measure. The cheap answer is something about a "sense of being female" which can't really be quantified. I can't say that Blaire White's sense of being female is the same as Emily's Cat's sense of being female. But I also can't say that they are not the same.

As you pointed out regarding my Venn diagram, all those traits are present in both sexes/genders. It's probably a 100% overlap. The differences, pertain with frequency and frequency of combinations. And they are likely to be different in different cultures. My contention is it's a combination of these traits and psychological factors which, by their nature, are difficult to impossible to quantify.

Absent sex, what commonalities unite any of what we call gender groups? What commonalities do I have with you that I do not also have with some woman, excuse me, female somewhere?

To put it another way:
Well I'm not the world's most masculine man
But I know what I am and I'm glad I'm a man
And so is Lola

One just knows. Of course, what some people "know" doesn't match up with their body. So is Emily's knowledge and Blaire's the same? I don't know. Is Emily's knowledge the same as Hillary Clinton's? I don't know. There's no way to measure it.

So that leaves lived experience. Which also has a great deal of variation. What part of the lived experience of being a woman (outside sex issues) is universal? I don't think the opression in the US is the same as the opression in the Middle East. And how does that compare to a matriarchal society in, say, the Amazon? Would someone be less a woman because they ruled the tribe?

But I wouldn't say trans-women quite grew up with male privilege either. At least not as a rule. They obviously didn't fit in and were likely bullied and abused by males. Again, not universally. Very little about this issue resides in universal truths. That's why it's so frustrating.

Anyway, that's not really an answer, but it's where the search for one takes me. I regard the question as being along the line of: "What's the sound of one hand clapping?"

 

[TomB]

In what way do (cis or trans) men have to deal with the norms of femininity? I'd be interested in a non-lyrical answer.

If you are too feminine, particularly in high school, your sexuality and manhood can be challenged. Cultural norms discourage men from being too much like women, so feminine norms are to be avoided.

In the Bob Seger song, the locals are insulting him by insinuating (presumably due to long hair) that he's not really a man. It's actually a pretty dead on lyric to quote.

 

[d4m10n]

If you are too feminine, particularly in high school, your sexuality and manhood can be challenged. Cultural norms discourage men from being too much like women, so feminine norms are to be avoided.

Does it seem to you that both cis men and trans men have to deal with the problem you've described here? If so, what they have in common is the expectation of conformity to masculine rather than feminine social norms.

 

[theprestige]

In what way do (cis or trans) men have to deal with the norms of femininity? I'd be interested in a non-lyrical answer.

Just as the norms of femininity
include women,
so do the norms of femininity
exclude men.
Women are persecuted
for not acting feminine enough.
Men are persecuted
for acting too feminine.

 

[theprestige]

<respectful snip>

This is the same vagueness that plagues the transgender debate. Nobody has any idea what transgender activists are even asking for. The whole thing is complicated and indefinable, but also somehow a pressing matter of human rights. What rights? Nobody really knows. I respect you for at least trying to answer the question, even if the upshot is that it's unanswerable.

I propose to you that it would be a lot easier if you thought of it as I do: Not as a matter of transgender affirmation, but as a matter of transsexual affirmation. The question is not, should we treat transwomen as women. The question is, should we treat transwomen as female? And should we treat them as female on the basis of self-ID alone?

Whatever Blair White's experience of feeling like a woman is, we know it's not the experience of living with significantly less testosterone in her system. We know it's not the experience of going through puberty as a female, or dealing with menstruation. Or dealing with whatever social baggage gets loaded on girls as they grow up.

And whatever Blair White's ideas about what it means to be a woman, there are certain things about being female that are distinct from that. Access to women's shelters, for example. Participation in women's sports, for another. Equitable representation in government, academia, and corporate board rooms.

 

[theprestige]

Does it seem to you that both cis men and trans men have to deal with the problem you've described here? If so, what they have in common is the expectation of conformity to masculine rather than feminine social norms.

They're two sides of the same coin. Everybody has to deal with both sides of the coin.

 

[d4m10n]

They're two sides of the same coin. Everybody has to deal with both sides of the coin.

Fair enough.

Cis men and trans men are subject to the expectations of masculinity, rather than femininity.

Cis women and trans women are subject to the expectations of femininity, rather than masculinity.

(The non-binary thread was shut down, or I'd point out the rest.)

 

[Cain]

Lol, you're the one who introduced the term "ideal" into this. That's on you, buddy, so you might want to take up that moral baggage complaint with your own self!

Are you really going to be this lame? I wrote, "Maybe in an ideal world, people would be more turned on by virtuous character traits rather than body shape, but it's not so easy to transcend to the beast within."

You responded: "I don't know why that would be an ideal world? [sic]" And then you wrote some weird stuff and didn't stop.

Later, you said: "Asexuals don't pass on their genes."

I pointed out circumstances where that's obviously not true (an admittedly pedantic point). Now you're reduced to emoticons and empty rhetoric:

Nobody said they couldn't? You're really slaughtering your own faulty argument here.

I have no idea what point you think you're trying to make here, or what it has to do with this discussion at all. Right now, you seem to be building a gordian knot... so I'm just gonna bow out of this irrelevancy.

Craziness. You started this digression. The point is rather simple: evolution is stupid and amoral. Human beings are capable of transcending what evolution "wants" for us. The irrelevancy is suggesting that "optimal mating strategies" (which are not generalizable) and so on tell us how we ought to live, which is our old friend the naturalistic fallacy.

 

[LondonJohn]

This is the same vagueness that plagues the transgender debate. Nobody has any idea what transgender activists are even asking for. The whole thing is complicated and indefinable, but also somehow a pressing matter of human rights. What rights? Nobody really knows. I respect you for at least trying to answer the question, even if the upshot is that it's unanswerable.

I propose to you that it would be a lot easier if you thought of it as I do: Not as a matter of transgender affirmation, but as a matter of transsexual affirmation. The question is not, should we treat transwomen as women. The question is, should we treat transwomen as female? And should we treat them as female on the basis of self-ID alone?

Fortunately, mainstream medics/scientists, legislators and judiciaries in progressive nations don't think of it as you do. They're a great deal better informed, and they adopt the baseline position of treating transwomen as women.

Just because you don't (or won't?) understand this subject sufficiently, it doesn't mean that other people - other people with important societal roles - don't understand it either. I suggest you take it up with the medics and scientists (who are hugely more qualified and experienced in these matters than you (or I)) and the legislators (who are hugely better informed than you (or I)) if you continue to disagree.

 

[Robin]

Fortunately, mainstream medics/scientists, legislators and judiciaries in progressive nations don't think of it as you do. They're a great deal better informed, and they adopt the baseline position of treating transwomen as women.

Just because you don't (or won't?) understand this subject sufficiently, it doesn't mean that other people - other people with important societal roles - don't understand it either. I suggest you take it up with the medics and scientists (who are hugely more qualified and experienced in these matters than you (or I)) and the legislators (who are hugely better informed than you (or I)) if you continue to disagree.

I remember a time when the mainstream psychiatrists of the world regarded homosexuality as a disorder and I disagreed.

I remember a time when the legislators and judiciary regarded homosexuality as something that merited up to 14 years in prison in my country and I disagreed.

Presumably they would have regarded themselves as better informed than me.

I don't see how that can be regarded as an argument

 

[Robin]

Although it is obviously a bit repetitive, the standard of argument in this thread is head and shoulders above that conducted by our so-called public intellectuals, which seems to consist mainly of shouting "terf!' and "woke!" at each other and trading bizarre conspiracy theories.

 

[Meadmaker]

Although it is obviously a bit repetitive, the standard of argument in this thread is head and shoulders above that conducted by our so-called public intellectuals, which seems to consist mainly of shouting "terf!' and "woke!" at each other and trading bizarre conspiracy theories.

Yikes. If this thread is head and shoulders above the rest of society, it's hard to imagine what the rest of the world is talking about. I think there's too much "terf" here. I admit that I do yell "woke" a bit, but I hope I have something else to go along with it.

But it does kind of relate to something I was going to say about LondonJohn's argument from the last election results, a variation of argument ad popularem.

In America, I don't think people even understand what they are supporting. In particular, I think a lot of the more lukewarm* supporters of trans rights don't realize that "transgender" includes people who have no medical treatment or even diagnosis. They don't realize that the people who want self ID as the only criterion are not fringe weirdos. They are policy makers at the Department of Education, and on their school board. I think they believe that "transgender" means surgically or at least hormonally altered.

I watched Dave Chapelle's show, and I think that's what even he thinks, and he was in the center of it. He was talking about transgender, but he was describing transsexual.

When that realization dawns on people, some of them switch their vote. I think the governor-elect of Virginia owes his victory to that. I think Donald Trump in 2016 did, too. I think this was the issue that put him over the top.

Anyway, must go to meeting, but I think an argument based on election results is a house of cards.

*ETA: What I mean by that are people who really don't give the issue much thought, but if you ask them about it, they'll say trans people are just fine with them. I think that's most people on the "blue" side of the ledger. I think when they understand exactly what the policies advocated are, a lot of them stop being trans supporters, and some of them jump to the "red" side.

 

[Louden Wilde]

The point is rather simple: evolution is stupid and amoral. Human beings are capable of transcending what evolution "wants" for us. The irrelevancy is suggesting that "optimal mating strategies" (which are not generalizable) and so on tell us how we ought to live, which is our old friend the naturalistic fallacy.

To some extent, sure. But (relevant to the thread) not to the point where transwomen will ever be considered women by most males.

The opening scene of the classic "Idiocracy" is worth watching in that regard...