Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[d4m10n]

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 what sense is this identity cultural, as you've said?

gay people have an innate internal identity in which they find themselves sexually attracted by people of the same sex as them.

Those of us past puberty understand what it is to experience sexual attraction, so this isn't particularly difficult to wrap our heads around. What we don't necessarily understand is what it is like to feel the need to be seen (by ourselves or others) as male or female, outside of the narrow social context of finding and perhaps retaining a mate.

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.

Is it bigotry to allow separate sports leagues for those who do not enjoy the various advantages granted by a functional SRY gene and androgen receptors during puberty? Stonewall says yes. What say you?

 

[Meadmaker]

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 your definition, you used the phrase "lived cultural identity". Is that intended to mean the same thing as "transgender identity"? I think the "cultural" aspect led some of us to think that perceptions or expectations of others played a role.

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.

And here we go witht he condescension again. You used a phrase no one understands because it is undefined, but the definition of the individual words suggested some sort of meaning, and now it's our fault for reading what you wrote. Bah.

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.

You said that last time, and yet here you are.

To be fair, you aren't actually "engaging". You're just pontificating. You pick and choose what you respond to, and you insult everyone who disagrees.

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Great. What does the most current, well-informed and evidence based medical science position have to say about whether Terry Miller should have raced against boys or girls? Go ahed, give the question a shot.

Let me test my own scientific knowledge before you start, though, because you are the judge of scientific quality around here.

Terry Miller perceived herself as a girl.
Terry Miller had a functioning male reproductive system that gave her all the athletic advantages associated with being male.


I think science is pretty clear on the above questions, but what does science say about where she should race?


To my way of thinking, that's not even really a scientific question, is it? That's more of a values question. Is it more important to affirm Terry's feminine identity, or is it more important to reward female athletes by having competitions where they have a chance to win? I don't see how to answer that scientifically.

But, with you knowing so much more about science, perhaps you can inform me from the scientific angle? I know that would require engagement, which you say you have no interest in, and your posting history demonstrates that, but if you decide to venture outside your comfort zone, give it a shot. What does the science say about where Terry should compete?

 

[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".

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


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?

Actually, let me step back a moment. LJ, I owe you an apology.

I was wrong to say you claim the science is settled. I was vastly overstating. It wasn't fair to you, and it wasn't fair to anyone else involved in this debate. I'm sorry. I can understand why you wouldn't want to engage on that basis.

Meadmaker and Damion are covering much of the same ground I would cover, and are generally more careful about respecting all sides in the debate. Hopefully you're still willing to engage with them. I'll back off for a bit.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

That's entirely the problem though. I'd really like a truly genuine, thoughtful answer here:

Two male-bodied people with penises walk into the female locker room at the gym, where the middle-school swim team is changing clothes. One of those two is a transwoman who has gender dysphoria and genuinely believes themself to be a woman. The other is a pedophile looking to get a look at some naked females.

How can you determine which is which?

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

This is tiring. Many of us understand the concept perfectly well. We do not ACCEPT the concept as universally true, nor do we accept it as being immune from abuse, nor do we accept that someone's internal sense of themself as the opposite sex is MORE IMPORTANT THAN a person's actual real sex, and we do not accept that a person's unverifiable internal subjective sense of gender identity should in any way override sex in law and policy.


You keep ignoring that and pretending that posters are either irreconcilably ignorant or are malicious.

(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.......)

It falls on ears that are quite aware that it's a shoddy, flawed argument that lacks any real comparison to the situation in discussion here.

 

[TomB]

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

To a point. You have the right to be a jerk. But if you do so, you lose the right to not be called a jerk.

And at work, if you know someone is transgender and you continually misgender them, I think you are subject to discipline or dismissal because you would be intentionally referring to them by terms you know they consider offensive. (The problem isn't the misgendering specifically, it's the intentionally offending.)

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?

While I'm a bit tired of the trend of everyone putting out preferred pronouns that match up with the defaults anyway, I do get the concept.

Calling a trans person their preferred pronouns maintains a congruity between the outside world and internal image. Calling them the wrong pronouns kind of rubs their face in the disparity and likely brings their dysphoria to the fore.

Really, it's the somewhat the same for cis people. Calling a boy "she" insults their masculinity, which is why kids do it so much. And most girls don't like to be called boys either.

I'm going to disregard the fursona stuff for the same reason I dismiss LondonJohn's analogies to race and homosexuality: The fact that there are commonalities between topics does not mean they are equivalent enough to translate positions or conclusions. All of the issues which have been used for analogies are complex enough that they merit consideration in their own right.

 

[Meadmaker]

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?

After reading TomB's post, I was about to correct him, but I think that there's no need for correction, and in fact, on futher review, I decided your question was somewhat misguided.

I think LondonJohn is saying (in the post you were responding to with the above) that their internal identity is not about how others perceive them, or even how they wish to have others perceive them. It's just their identity.


On the other hand, to TomB's point, it is also true that if you perceive yourself in a certain way, you probably wish other people perceived you that way as well. So, the actual identity is not about how you wish others to perceive you, but it is likely that you would wish others to perceive you, and treat you, in a way that matches your internal perception.

It's a subtle difference, but I think it is a coherent statement to say that internal identity is not about how others perceive you.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I honestly don't recall anyone here expressing any opposition to using someone's preferred pronoun. I know there are people who go out of their way to mock and belittle others for this, but I usually choose to distance myself from people like that. I just consider it poisonous behavior that I'm not going to volunteer to be around.

I do find it a bit bemusing when a group of transgender people will choose entirely different pronouns for each of themselves. At that point, it no longer is a pronoun, it's about personal identity. Which is fine, it's just that it becomes a semantic issue.

Really, the only issues I see that can be objectively discussed are around the tangible actual physical difference between male and female bodies, and as others have said, I don't see any good reason to destroy the few spaces biological XY women have for themselves, for the sake of a small minority. I don't think any one person is more important than another; but I do think many more people are affected by the demands of a few. Sorry, but I don't think this is a civil rights issue. Many rights have been and always will be restricted when there are conflicts with others' rights, and I don't see that ever changing.

 

[theprestige]

To a point. You have the right to be a jerk. But if you do so, you lose the right to not be called a jerk.

I think this conversation would be a very different, and this thread a lot shorter, if it were just about whether it's okay to be a jerk.

Try starting a thread about whether etiquette requires us to take fursonas as seriously as furries do. See if it runs to four years and seven parts. I bet not.

And at work, if you know someone is transgender and you continually misgender them, I think you are subject to discipline or dismissal because you would be intentionally referring to them by terms you know they consider offensive. (The problem isn't the misgendering specifically, it's the intentionally offending.)

On this I agree. On the other hand, if someone at work was trying to present as their fursona, and taking offense at those who refused to play along, they'd probably get taken aside by HR and counseled to keep their self-ID to themselves, and just focus on professional work interactions.

Professional work interactions being something that's pretty much universally agreed should be self-ID agnostic.

While I'm a bit tired of the trend of everyone putting out preferred pronouns that match up with the defaults anyway, I do get the concept.

Calling a trans person their preferred pronouns maintains a congruity between the outside world and internal image. Calling them the wrong pronouns kind of rubs their face in the disparity and likely brings their dysphoria to the fore.

Psychological distresses should be treated, not enabled. Also your position begs the question that everyone who's asserting preferred pronouns has actually been diagnosed with a condition that needs treatment and is triggered by the default pronouns. My perception is that at the moment, most people claiming trans-identity have not been so diagnosed. What's more, there are vocal, influential factions in the trans-activist community that insist that no such diagnosis is necessary, nor should it be.

Really, it's the somewhat the same for cis people. Calling a boy "she" insults their masculinity, which is why kids do it so much. And most girls don't like to be called boys either.

I'm going to disregard the fursona stuff for the same reason I dismiss LondonJohn's analogies to race and homosexuality: The fact that there are commonalities between topics does not mean they are equivalent enough to translate positions or conclusions. All of the issues which have been used for analogies are complex enough that they merit consideration in their own right.

The fursona stuff is a solid analogy. Like gender (we are told), it is entirely a matter of self-ID. It differs from gender identity not in what it is (a self-ID), but in how its adherents demand to be treated by society at large.

We dismiss the race analogy because biological sex is real, and race is not.

We dismiss the sexuality analogy because sexual attraction really is a self-ID thing, and does not require input or reaction from anyone else. All homosexuals ask for, in public policy, is to be left alone, same as heterosexuals are left alone to pursue their sexual attractions with like-minded adults.

So. Why should we dismiss the fursona analogy?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

It's a subtle difference, but I think it is a coherent statement to say that internal identity is not about how others perceive you.

When that internal identity is partially based on cultural and social conventions, expectations, ideals, etc. you can see how there is a big gray area between outside perception and self perception.

 

[theprestige]

After reading TomB's post, I was about to correct him, but I think that there's no need for correction, and in fact, on futher review, I decided your question was somewhat misguided.

I think LondonJohn is saying (in the post you were responding to with the above) that their internal identity is not about how others perceive them, or even how they wish to have others perceive them. It's just their identity.


On the other hand, to TomB's point, it is also true that if you perceive yourself in a certain way, you probably wish other people perceived you that way as well. So, the actual identity is not about how you wish others to perceive you, but it is likely that you would wish others to perceive you, and treat you, in a way that matches your internal perception.

It's a subtle difference, but I think it is a coherent statement to say that internal identity is not about how others perceive you.

I agree with all of that.

My point is that as a matter of public policy and social acceptance, internal identity is almost never privileged, or taken into consideration at all. Nor should it be.

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree with all of that.

My point is that as a matter of public policy and social acceptance, internal identity is almost never privileged, or taken into consideration at all. Nor should it be.

Agreed.

 

[Olmstead]

The fursona stuff is a solid analogy. Like gender (we are told), it is entirely a matter of self-ID. It differs from gender identity not in what it is (a self-ID), but in how its adherents demand to be treated by society at large.

We dismiss the race analogy because biological sex is real, and race is not.

We dismiss the sexuality analogy because sexual attraction really is a self-ID thing, and does not require input or reaction from anyone else. All homosexuals ask for, in public policy, is to be left alone, same as heterosexuals are left alone to pursue their sexual attractions with like-minded adults.

So. Why should we dismiss the fursona analogy?

A fursona is a bad analogy because it doesn't result directly from the condition of a person's brain/mind, and there are many reasons for people to adopt one, from the fetishistic to the spiritual. The mechanisms simply aren't comparable, and I'd say it's generally more akin to a subculture.

Besides, there is already a much closer analogy in the case of transableism.

 

[d4m10n]

My point is that as a matter of public policy and social acceptance, internal identity is almost never privileged, or taken into consideration at all.

Racking my brain to come up with exceptions to this generalization, and so far all I've got are conscientious and religious objections to various mandates (e.g. military drafts, vaccine requirements).

 

[Louden Wilde]

I honestly don't recall anyone here expressing any opposition to using someone's preferred pronoun. I know there are people who go out of their way to mock and belittle others for this, but I usually choose to distance myself from people like that. I just consider it poisonous behavior that I'm not going to volunteer to be around.

I do find it a bit bemusing when a group of transgender people will choose entirely different pronouns for each of themselves. At that point, it no longer is a pronoun, it's about personal identity. Which is fine, it's just that it becomes a semantic issue.

Really, the only issues I see that can be objectively discussed are around the tangible actual physical difference between male and female bodies, and as others have said, I don't see any good reason to destroy the few spaces biological XY women have for themselves, for the sake of a small minority. I don't think any one person is more important than another; but I do think many more people are affected by the demands of a few. Sorry, but I don't think this is a civil rights issue. Many rights have been and always will be restricted when there are conflicts with others' rights, and I don't see that ever changing.

You mean XX in the highlighted - (i.e. adult females as opposed to TW), no ?

I've soured on the pronouns issue over the last couple years. I think neutral pronouns for everyone would be fine. But I think using feminine pronouns for any male that demands it has led to a sequence of proclamations/ideas like: Transwomen are women. Transwomen are women in the same sense that black women are women. Transwomen are female. Sex is just a social construct. TW are more real women than cis women. Women with cis privilege are oppressing transwomen

I wish I were exaggerating those statements. But we're at a point where our (US) governments touts Rachel Levine as the first female of her rank
(among the many examples of how crazy things have gotten). Questioning this ideology is only met with cries of "bigot", etc. (as we've seen in this thread). As theprestige noted, folks with psychological distress should be treated, not enabled. More broadly, males who prefer activities, etc. currently more associated with females should not be subject to ridicule, have to feel that they are lesser men (or "women") or to change their pronouns.

 

[theprestige]

Agreed.

And yet here we are. : P

 

[Louden Wilde]

A fursona is a bad analogy because it doesn't result directly from the condition of a person's brain/mind, and there are many reasons for people to adopt one, from the fetishistic to the spiritual. The mechanisms simply aren't comparable, and I'd say it's generally more akin to a subculture.

Besides, there is already a much closer analogy in the case of transableism.

I'm pretty sure there are TW that are analogues to both groups. Remember that the not affectionate name among TRAs for people (including fellow Trans-folks) who think that you must have gender dysphoria to qualify is "truscum". And I've seen TRAs posit that other kinks or that fetishes in general are a valid identity and should be more visible.

I don't think many TRAs/gender ideologues really want an assay, as it might reveal that a good portion are not "true trans".

 

[theprestige]

A fursona is a bad analogy because it doesn't result directly from the condition of a person's brain/mind, and there are many reasons for people to adopt one, from the fetishistic to the spiritual. The mechanisms simply aren't comparable, and I'd say it's generally more akin to a subculture.

I'd agree, if medical essentialism really were the determining factor in trans-ID and trans-activism. In fact, medical diagnosis has been rejected as a requirement for trans accommodation in public policy, by the trans-activist community.

My entire view of this topic changes drastically, the moment Stonewall announces that only people who have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria by a reputable medical professional qualify for trans accommodation.

Besides, there is already a much closer analogy in the case of transableism.

I think they're both pretty close, actually. Transabelism touches on "is this a delusion or just another viewpoint" question. Fursonas touch on the "why should your personal view of yourself be binding on anyone else, or a matter of public policy" question.

 

[Olmstead]

I'm pretty sure there are TW that are analogues to both groups. Remember that the not affectionate name among TRAs for people (including fellow Trans-folks) who think that you must have gender dysphoria to qualify is "truscum". And I've seen TRAs posit that other kinks or that fetishes in general are a valid identity and should be more visible.

I don't think many TRAs/gender ideologues really want an assay, as it might reveal that a good portion are not "true trans".

And in my opinion that position is hogwash. Once you take away gender dysphoria, there really isn't anything to distinguish transgenderism from a subculture, so I refuse to even entertain that notion.

I don't think there should necessarily be a requirement for an actual diagnosis, but from a theoretical point of view, a transgender person should be someone with gender dysphoria, whether diagnosed or not.

ETA: I realise that from a practical point of view, there might not be much difference if there is never a requirement for a diagnosis, but there are many legitimate reasons why people wouldn't want to involve doctors.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

I can think of a third category which I've seen often enough, that is, voluntary single-sex social groupings. Some friends of ours host a neighborhood ladies night party, for example. Another obvious example would be fraternal and sororal social organizations such as the Shriners or AΩE.