Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Emily's Cat]

My point was, that even though that is the simplistic answer, life/nature aint that simple--see:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

You are free to disagree with this, but it is not a unique position.

All of mammalian life is that simple. There are only two sexes in mammals, indeed in most vertebrates.

Don't conflate a complex system with a complex outcome. There are a whole lot of steps involved in sexual development... with the end result of only two possible sexes actually developing.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Indeed.

And there were of course plenty of well-documented terrorist-style incidents carried out by black civil rights activists, and female suffragettes, and other unfairly-oppressed groups. So, go figure......

FWIW, I think it was highly irresponsible and provocative (at a minimum) for those trans-activists to have published photographs of them standing outside Rowling's private residence. I was interested though in Rowling's response - a defiant exhortation that it wasn't going to shut her up, and that nobody should be "telling women" what to do/think/etc.

And that got me to thinking: Rowling obviously believes that transwomen aren't women. But she must also therefore think that transmen are not men. In other words, she believes that transmen are women. So I wonder how she feels about a transman (ie a woman, in her eyes) "telling women" about the validity of transgender identity and the need for transgender rights?

I would be quite interested in seeing some of the terroristic suffragette actions.

Would you frame those as widespread and common, or as rare and isolated?

 

[Emily's Cat]

TERF's generally believe transmen are deluded women who have internalized misogyny to the extent that they willingly mutilate themselves. They are sympathetic to them as fellow women, but discredit their experiences as delusional self-harm.

Do you have some support for your assertion of what other people believe, or are you engaging in some mind-reading here?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not sure about the 'sex is bimodal' though. Bimodal implies that sex is on a continuous distribution with two frequency peaks. It is usually presented as a variant of 'sex is a spectrum'.

If sex is continuously distributed, what is the scale on the horizontal axis? Perhaps there is some meaning of 'bimodal' other than a statistical one.

Sex isn't bimodal; conformity to sex-based characteristics is bimodal.

I get incredibly tired of people (not you, of course) conflating sex-based characteristics with actual sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Perhaps this document may help with your incomprehension and mockery* - it sets out the official position of the UK Government, and educates you as to what the UK considers "a woman" to be (and how/why it's separate from "a female"):

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/envi...isthedifferencebetweensexandgender/2019-02-21

Can you quote the specific parts of your link that define what a woman is and what a man is? I don't see any description of what the UK considers "a woman" to be.

 

[Emily's Cat]

From Section 2 of the document (my highlighting and bolding for emphasis):

No... that's a definition of gender. It does not, however, explain what 'woman' or 'man' means.

 

[Meadmaker]

Can you quote the specific parts of your link that define what a woman is and what a man is? I don't see any description of what the UK considers "a woman" to be.

Huh. Everyone seems to be saying the same thing.

What an echo chamber.

(EC: You might not have reached that post yet. To be fair, LJ eventually provided an actual definition at post 2700. I don't think you'll like it, though.)

 

[Emily's Cat]

A woman is someone with the lived cultural identity and set of values/behaviours that is generally attributed to females (but it's not exclusive to females).

Can you elaborate on what is encapsulated in that 'cultural identity, set of values/behaviors' that are attributed to females?

And if, for example, a person is female but does NOT conform to those cultural and behavioral markers, does that female person get categorized as a 'non-woman' of some sort?

 

[Emily's Cat]

That is just a fancy way of saying a woman is a person who considers herself a woman (circular) and behaves like a stereotypical female.

Blimey.

If behaving like a stereotypical female is the bar we're using, then I get classified as a 'man' against my will.

 

[Emily's Cat]

One thing that interests me is this vague appeal to social constructs or whatever. LJ, ST, et al. never actually cite a prominent transwoman. "This is what being a woman means," says Caitlin Jenner. Or does she? Do any of these trans celebrities ever actually define their identity, on the record? A government official claims she is a woman, not a man. But does she ever define either?

Of course not.

According to Jenner, the most difficult thing about 'being a woman' is figuring out what to wear.

I suspect that their view is not shared by females in general.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Because she appears to be female, or else because she has signaled her preference to be treated as such.

Which is sexist.


Which is either sexist or meaningless.

Show me a transwoman who wants all the expenses of a romantic outing to be paid for by her male partner, because she's a woman, and I'll show you a sexist scumbag.

Show me a transwoman who bristles at the thought, and makes a point of paying for herself on a date, and I'll show you someone who probably doesn't need to be making the man/woman distinction at all.

How so? Sexism implies the idea that one sex is superior to the other in non-trivial ways, e.g. "Men are leaders," or "Men are scum."

Let's start with the premise that it's okay to treat someone differently because of how you perceive their sex. A dude seems effeminate to you, so you treat him like a lady. Assuming there actually is a difference in how you treat men and women, that's sexist. I don't think the difference in treatment has to be non-trivial in order to qualify for this. Just different.

But the important point to me is not so much the sexism, but the difference in treatment. If you want to argue that it's not sexist to treat men and women differently because of their sex (or gender), fine. But you're still treating them differently. How? And why?

Maybe sexist isn't the right term for what I'm trying to get at, then. Because I'd say that biology is sexist. Not in a pejorative sense, but certainly in a "there are real differences and they have serious implications" sense.

But I do think that treating women differently, according to some social stereotype of gender, is sexist in the pejorative sense. It's either a hangover from conventions about the "weaker sex", or it's a misandrist overcorrection.

---

And what's really notable here is the complete absence of trans-activists from this part of the discussion. We're trying to figure out what it really means to be treated as a woman (separately from being treated as a female), or what it could even possibly mean in our society today. But the people with ostensibly the biggest vested interest in getting these questions answered assiduously avoid answering them.

This got messy in terms of posts and back and forth, so I'll multiquote and add my view to the mix.

If someone is perceived by others as being female, then for all intents and purposes, they are a 'woman'. They may very well be a male who passes very well, but that is irrelevant most of the time. The perception of a person as male or female is based on some incredibly good pattern recognition in the human brain, that is triggered by sex-based differences of the body and facial structure. If a male person can fool those perceptions, then I have no problem with them being considered a 'woman'.

I would also, however, point out that a visible penis fails to pass every. single. time.

The second element, however, is around how society treats people based on their perceived sex. That gets stickier. I don't think that a person's value or worth should be based on their sex, nor do I think that sex should be relevant in most social situations. But that doesn't necessarily mean that sex should never result in differential treatment.

Males and females have different medical needs. We have different risk exposures across a variety of medical, physical, and social contexts. Males shouldn't be recommended for cervical screenings; females shouldn't be recommended for prostate screenings. Females have no use for jock straps; males have no use for nursing bras.

What I see happening in this discussion quite a bit is the conflation of "discrimination" and "accommodation". People should not be discriminated against on the basis of their sex, but there are situations in which accommodations should be made for a person's sex. I view it as very similar to people with physical disabilities. Nobody should be discriminated against because they have a disability... but there are certainly situations where a person's disability should be accommodated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's not a particularly good joke, and jokes are always ruined by explaining them (which is why I like to explain dad jokes to my sister). But the joke comes from thinking of the X as a "female" sperm and the Y as a "male" sperm, based on the sex of the child it can produce. And since males can run faster than females...

Yeah, they can't all be winners.

Me and humor often pass in the night...

 

[d4m10n]

To be fair, LJ eventually provided an actual definition at post 2700.

If we plug his definition into "trans women are women" we get "trans women are people with the lived cultural identity and set of values/behaviours that is generally attributed to females."

If "lived cultural identity" is about how people react to you when moving through society, then I suppose this is a workable idea. It is, however, rather at odds with how gender identity is said to work in social justice glossaries and infographics.

As to (feminine) values and behaviors, on that point LJ's definition won't stretch far enough to cover cisgender butch ladies like Katie Herzog.

 

[theprestige]

If we plug his definition into "trans women are women" we get "trans women are people with the lived cultural identity and set of values/behaviours that is generally attributed to females."

If "lived cultural identity" is about how people react to you when moving through society, then I suppose this is a workable idea.

I think it's not very workable even so.

For one thing, the whole idea of reacting to someone differently because of their perceived sex is deprecated. There's two major exceptions I can think of:

If you're sexually attracted to the person, and it's in a social setting where expressing and acting on sexual attraction is expected and desired. A singles bar, for example.

If you're embarking on an activity where the differences in biology between males and females is the paramount consideration. Athletic competition, for example.

Pretty much anywhere else that people are moving through society, there should be little to no difference in how people react (outwardly) to you based on your perceived sex. Wherever that's not the case, it's universally seen as a bad thing. No transwoman is going to celebrate being turned down for a job because the hiring manager thought she was a woman and that women shouldn't do that kind of work. No transman is going to be happy about being turned down for a rental application because the landlady would really prefer that all her tenants be female.

For another thing, "how people react to you when moving through society" is not really related to how you identify yourself. If that's the definition of gender, then a lot of transwomen really aren't women. They're dudes in dresses. (And as you say, that means there are also some women who are actually men, at least some of the time, wether they see themselves that way or not).

Any definition that depends on how other people see you has to be based on how they actually see you, not how you see yourself or how you want them to see you or how you want them to pretend to see you after you tell them how you see yourself.

 

[theprestige]

To be fair, LJ eventually provided an actual definition at post 2700. I don't think you'll like it, though.

It's the same circular vaguery that's been tried from time to time in this thread. Two things about it are notable to me:

First, there's no discussion of the implications and shortcomings of the definition, and no attempt to square its circle. Just take it or leave it. Trans activists won't explain it to you, except to explain that if you leave it, you're a TERF and a Nazi and your opinion doesn't count anyway.

Second, it's an ad hoc definition. LJ has more than once suggested that the science is settled and that governments have adopted proper definitions. So at this point I'm not really interested in his lay definitions. I want to see the official government position. I want to see the peer-reviewed articles where the scientists lay out the scientific definitions that the government has adopted.

So I don't like it because it has no cites, and what I'm interested in right now from the trans-activist side is some cites.

 

[LondonJohn]

Transgender identity is based wholly on an internalised sense of identity. Not on how the person is perceived (or wishes to be perceived) by others.

The "perceived by others" element is only a secondary by-product of the above.

If people in this thread still don't know/understand this..... fundamental point at this stage, well it's yet more evidence that it's impossible to have an informed, evidence-based, knowledge-based debate in this little cesspit of a thread. Hence: I don't give a monkey's about engagement with anyone in here any longer, on account of it being a toxic mess of ignorance, misunderstanding and (from some) outright bigotry. And I realise that most of you can't even see that


(Perhaps some of those who are ignorant of this point might help themselves by considering homosexuals: gay people have an innate internal identity in which they find themselves sexually attracted by people of the same sex as them. It's nothing to do with a consideration of how they're perceived by others - whether those others are gay or straight. But a secondary manifestation of their (internal) gay identity is to present themselves as gay to, for example, other gay people of the same sex. Importantly, this secondary manifestation is an "effect" of their gay identity, not a "cause". But again, I'm guessing all this will fall on deaf/mocking ears.......)

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, it's a(nother) misrepresentation of my position to claim I'm saying "the science is settled". Because - as all scientists know - nothing in science is "settled".

What I am saying is that this is the most current, well-informed and evidence-based medical science position. And that is the only scientific position that counts.... until/unless science comes to a newer, better position.

Exactly the same is true of something like climate change. There is a current scientific consensus on climate change, its causes and its forecast progression. That's not a "settled" position. But it's the best and most accurate position available as of now. And the world's governments are acting on this position because it would be improper of them to do anything else. They can't say "Hmm we think the current climate change consensus is probably wrong, so we're going to wait and see if it changes in the future, before deciding what policies to implement".

Likewise, when it comes to transgender identity, governments should not, and cannot, say "Hmm we don't like the current scientific consensus on transgender identity, so we're not going to implement policies in line with that consensus".

I'd have thought all of that was obvious. To people who understand the scientific method, of course.......

 

[Meadmaker]

It's the same circular vaguery that's been tried from time to time in this thread. Two things about it are notable to me:

First, there's no discussion of the implications and shortcomings of the definition, and no attempt to square its circle. Just take it or leave it. Trans activists won't explain it to you, except to explain that if you leave it, you're a TERF and a Nazi and your opinion doesn't count anyway.

Second, it's an ad hoc definition. LJ has more than once suggested that the science is settled and that governments have adopted proper definitions. So at this point I'm not really interested in his lay definitions. I want to see the official government position. I want to see the peer-reviewed articles where the scientists lay out the scientific definitions that the government has adopted.

So I don't like it because it has no cites, and what I'm interested in right now from the trans-activist side is some cites.

That goes to something that LondonJohn's last post really drove home for me. He said he would no longer "engage" with us, but it just seems like TRAs don't do much in the way of "engaging" anyway. It certainly isn't limited to LondonJohn or to people in this thread. It just seems that TRAs, from the grass roots activists all the way to the Department of Education and the White House just don't see any need to justify their positions, acknowledge the people who disagree with them, or engage in any meaningful manner.

It's name calling, condescension, "holier than thou" attitudes, and that level of discourse.

Where it really sticks out for me is the sports issue, not because it's the most important, but just because I think the answer is completely obvious. I've engaged on the topic for a long time. I've given it a lot of thought. I've tried to see all angles. When it comes to intersex, and to fully or partially transitioned people, there's some room for discussion. However, when it comes to intact, functional, males competing as girls, there really are not two sides to that issue. If you think that girls' or women's sports are worthwhile, you can't allow males to compete.

And what happens? The White House calles it hate legislation. It's just so typical. Ignore the facts and insult the people who disagree.

If someone on the generally left-leaning side would try and come up with restrictions and accommodations that would allow competitions without destroying those competitions, then I'd be willing to listen, but instead we get, "Who cares? It's just sports." and "You're a hater."

That applies not just to this thread, but to society at large.

ETA: Ninja's a bit. LondonJohn posted while I was composing this post.

 

[theprestige]

Transgender identity is based wholly on an internalised sense of identity. Not on how the person is perceived (or wishes to be perceived) by others.

In that case it should be entirely opt-in for others, not enforced on everyone else as a matter of public policy.

But if it's not about how a person wishes to be perceived by others, why are preferred pronouns a thing? Why is gender self-ID any more privileged than a fursona?

 

[theprestige]

By the way, it's a(nother) misrepresentation of my position to claim I'm saying "the science is settled". Because - as all scientists know - nothing in science is "settled".

What I am saying is that this is the most current, well-informed and evidence-based medical science position.

Where is the peer reviewed science that supports the definition you give here:

A woman is someone with the lived cultural identity and set of values/behaviours that is generally attributed to females (but it's not exclusive to females).

Where is the citation? Where is the scientist who's telling you that this is the best definition we have at the moment, supported by the best science currently available?