Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[TomB]

One can make a case that even if they feel forced into it, they're still enshrining those stereotypes. Practically speaking , I can't see anyway to tell which males are attracted to these stereotypes (due to a paraphilia) and which feel compelled to conform to them (i.e. due gender dysphoria). In some it may be a mixture.

That being said, if you spend some time checking what TRAs post on Twitter, it seems pretty clear that are a fair amount that effectively do think that being a woman is a performance - in fact some claim that they are better at it (being women) than "cis-women".

And you will find a lot of them who will describe trying to be a man as the performance.

Given that there is no "wears dresses and makeup gene," we all wear costumes and adapt behaviors to present the image we want to project to the outside world. Even if we don't think about it a lot. I'll submit myself as evidence. Intellectually, I suspect that a skirt/robe/or dress would actually be more comfortable in some weather conditions. However, I'm not going to wear one in public largely because it doesn't fit the acceptable costumes for my gender and I don't want to be seen as something I'm not. Were I in another culture or a Pope or Cardinal, I would have that option. But it's not available to me.

I don't like the word performance because it implies some sort of pretend, make believe, dishonesty or deception. When I perform the role of man, it is none of those, because that's how I identify. When a trans person performs a gender role that doesn't match their sex, they are also not pretending or being dishonest because they are performing the role that matches their gender, even if it doesn't match their sex.

The fact that it doesn't match their sex, however, necessitates a preference for the areas of gender presentation that do not overlap if they want people to react to them as the correct gender.

None of this, however relates to who gets into which spaces or who can compete in which sports leagues. That's because when those determinations are made it's not just about the individual, it relates to interaction with or perception by others depending on the setting or context.

Which is another reason I see no need for making arguments challenging the legitimacy of someone's identity. Everyone's identity is valid. But internal identity is not the only thing that dictates how a person interacts with society.

 

[d4m10n]

Which is another reason I see no need for making arguments challenging the legitimacy of someone's identity. Everyone's identity is valid.

If someone identifies as a feminist, but they've never done anything to improve the material condition of females, would you validate their identity?

If someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't believe in any Messiah?

If someone identifies as a skeptic, but regularly indulges in antivax credulity...?

 

[Louden Wilde]

If someone identifies as a feminist, but they've never done anything to improve the material condition of females, would you validate their identity?

If someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't believe in any Messiah?

If someone identifies as a skeptic, but regularly indulges in antivax credulity...?

Nice reply! While I think the thrust of Tom B's message is 'don't be jerk' - (which is obvs good) - the fact is that "adult human female" (i.e. woman) is not an identity but rather a descriptor. I agree that much of time we can indulge a person's inner sense of self even when it doesn't align with reality/our sense of them, but I agree with you and many of the posters here that this is a major exception. Moreover, long-term it is not going to do TW any good, because they will never be (broadly) regarded as women in the same way adult human females are.

 

[TomB]

If someone identifies as a feminist, but they've never done anything to improve the material condition of females, would you validate their identity?

First, it is not up to me to validate anyone's identity.

Second, I think one can be a feminist based on what they believe without necessarily being an activist and out on the front lines pushing for change. So if your question is "Would I consider that person a feminist?" then the answer is obviously yes.

If someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't believe in any Messiah?

If someone identifies as a skeptic, but regularly indulges in antivax credulity...?

You are trying to find cases where someone identifies as something that contradicts their actual beliefs. I get your point, but I could actually argue "Yes" for any of those you listed. For example, I think there were early sects of Christianity which did not necessarily believe in Jesus divinity. And you frame an anti-vaxer as credulous of anti-vax propaganda. But a case could also be made that instead, they are skeptical of medical science as it relates to vaccines. Just as some in this topic are skeptical of psychology when it comes to trans issues. Which can also be described as credulous of anti-trans propaganda or studies. People, including on this board, are often skeptical of things that contradict their predispositions yet credulous of things that seem to support those predispositions.

Now, as a biologist, I know what sex is. I also know that there are some behaviors that do not appear to be learned. Some of these tend to be sex linked. (I actually took ethology in college, though my focus was more on ecology.) I also took several psychology and human behavior courses. It is perfectly reasonable to me that there could be a genetic basis for personality factors. Which means it's also perfectly logical that there could be anomalous situations where heritable sex-linked psychological traits could appear with the wrong sex. It happens with other things. It makes perfect sense here.

Arguing over whether intersex conditions are a spectrum (in my view they are not) is dead end and not particularly relevant, though people on both sides like to pretend it's significant when convenient.

The jury is still out on the source of gender dysphoria. Nature vs. nurture? Welcome to psychology where it's very hard to measure things empirically.

But it doesn't matter unless you are trying to characterize trans people as insane and delusional. Which I don't think most here are trying to do. We are here. There are people with dysphoria. The question is not are they good, bad or honest, the question is how we fit them into society in various situations.

If I were to choose to regard them as delusional, does that change anything? Not really. Given there is no cure for the mental side, the best treatment currently seems to be transition. So I will try to accommodate that when possible. The question is when is it not possible?

If everyone in the world were good people, there would be few areas where it is not possible. Sports being the major exception, I think. But the fact that there are bad people out there who may or will take advantage of loopholes created by accommodation complicates things. This is mostly the fault of cis people, not trans people, but the consequences fall on the trans people. Unless we ignore the bad actors in which case the consequences fall on women (both cis and trans).

The ideal solution is one that (easily) gives trans people the access they are wanting but also closes the loopholes that can be exploited by bad people. (Mostly cis men.) But no one seems to be trying to do that. One side is "protect women" while the other is "support trans rights." No one seems to be trying to resolve the actual problem.

Yay! Go Team!!!

One more point, for those who seem to think that a diagnosis is necessary to be legitimately trans. Diagnosis does not create reality. Warren Zevon had cancer long before his diagnosis. People have ADHD, anxiety and depression without being diagnosed. Some people know this and prescribe their own treatments. (Self-medication: It's the American way.) One can have dysphoria without a diagnosis and self-treat (transition) as well.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be a legal process to change legal gender (and thus gain access). I'm just leery of making the hurdles too cumbersome. Is there any other condition for which anyone would suggest treatment must be earned?

 

[TomB]

Nice reply! While I think the thrust of Tom B's message is 'don't be jerk' - (which is obvs good) - the fact is that "adult human female" (i.e. woman) is not an identity but rather a descriptor. I agree that much of time we can indulge a person's inner sense of self even when it doesn't align with reality/our sense of them, but I agree with you and many of the posters here that this is a major exception. Moreover, long-term it is not going to do TW any good, because they will never be (broadly) regarded as women in the same way adult human females are.

And yet, in many ways, both sides consider the term "woman" as an identity. After all, you pulled the words "adult human female" from one definition of woman.

I said many threads back that "woman" appears to be a magic word. It carries significance to both sides of this debate. Consequently, no definition can ever be agreed on by all. So I consider it pointless to argue about.

Whether a definition is agreed upon or not: whether the answer to "Are Trans women women?" is yes or no does not change the issues we face. It matters not if trans women is a distinct (but equal) group or a subset of women. Describe the situation how you will, the same issues remain.

Both sides frustrate me on this thread. (Apologies to d4m10n. It appears to me that you are attempting to explore both sides of the issue.) Calling people delusional and characterizing transition as a performance or cos-play is not trying to resolve an issue. Neither is calling people transphobes and bigots.

At the same time, the issue fascinates me because there is no universal right or wrong. There are no easy solutions. No one on this thread is 100% right and no one on this thread is 100% wrong.

I guess it doesn't matter, really. None of us here is in a position to make policy decisions. Unless one of you is secretly one of those wise politicians LondonJohn misplaces so much confidence in. (Boris Johnson? Are you here?)

 

[LondonJohn]

It’s ok - I hardly think this counts as “elite” sports so it’s really not worth getting worked up about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It counts as sub-elite, but should (IMO) definitely be subject to corrective regulation, since 1) it's a direct feeder into elite-level sport (in this case: National, Olympic and World Championship level), and 2) NCAA records are important in their own right, and should not be able to be distorted in this way.

I would hope the NCAA will take the necessary steps to prevent transgender swimmers from posting validated times. At a sub-elite level, I don't see any problem in transgender swimmers competing. I just think their times should not be allowed to count. And of course elite-level selectors can (and will) easily disregard the endeavours of transgender athletes in any case - they'll simply select the best cisgender athletes to take up to elite level training/competition.


Sent from my laptop using my fingers on the keyboard.

 

[LondonJohn]

And yet, in many ways, both sides consider the term "woman" as an identity. After all, you pulled the words "adult human female" from one definition of woman.

I said many threads back that "woman" appears to be a magic word. It carries significance to both sides of this debate. Consequently, no definition can ever be agreed on by all. So I consider it pointless to argue about.

Whether a definition is agreed upon or not: whether the answer to "Are Trans women women?" is yes or no does not change the issues we face. It matters not if trans women is a distinct (but equal) group or a subset of women. Describe the situation how you will, the same issues remain.

Both sides frustrate me on this thread. (Apologies to d4m10n. It appears to me that you are attempting to explore both sides of the issue.) Calling people delusional and characterizing transition as a performance or cos-play is not trying to resolve an issue. Neither is calling people transphobes and bigots.

At the same time, the issue fascinates me because there is no universal right or wrong. There are no easy solutions. No one on this thread is 100% right and no one on this thread is 100% wrong.

I guess it doesn't matter, really. None of us here is in a position to make policy decisions. Unless one of you is secretly one of those wise politicians LondonJohn misplaces so much confidence in. (Boris Johnson? Are you here?)

This "adult human female" mantra crap isn't helping the debate at all either. But that's what the anti-trans brigade have taught themselves to say by now......

 

[Louden Wilde]

And yet, in many ways, both sides consider the term "woman" as an identity. After all, you pulled the words "adult human female" from one definition of woman.

I said many threads back that "woman" appears to be a magic word. It carries significance to both sides of this debate. Consequently, no definition can ever be agreed on by all. So I consider it pointless to argue about.

Whether a definition is agreed upon or not: whether the answer to "Are Trans women women?" is yes or no does not change the issues we face. It matters not if trans women is a distinct (but equal) group or a subset of women. Describe the situation how you will, the same issues remain.




Both sides frustrate me on this thread. (Apologies to d4m10n. It appears to me that you are attempting to explore both sides of the issue.) Calling people delusional and characterizing transition as a performance or cos-play is not trying to resolve an issue. Neither is calling people transphobes and bigots.

At the same time, the issue fascinates me because there is no universal right or wrong. There are no easy solutions. No one on this thread is 100% right and no one on this thread is 100% wrong.

)

'Adult human female' is certainly the most common and (more importantly) the most objective definition. More importantly, it far predates identity - our ancestors knew who the adult females of their species were long before language. You're ignoring the underlying reasons why the sexes exist - and again why TW will never be considered women in the same sense. & gender/gender ID will never be important than sex. Anyone who has an understanding of evolution/selection knows this at some level


Also - as far as I can tell - most women (by def above) want the word to describe themselves. Why do you think they should have to give it up? You agree that women/girls are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their sex, right?

ETA- There may well be a genetic/epigenetic basis for the TW who have gender dysphoria to feel that way, but it does not make them female.

 

[Manger Douse]

How would a young adult female know if it was worth going semi-pro if her times are constantly miles behind the young adult males she was competing against?

 

[Meadmaker]

I would hope the NCAA will take the necessary steps to prevent transgender swimmers from posting validated times. At a sub-elite level, I don't see any problem in transgender swimmers competing. I just think their times should not be allowed to count.

I can certainly agree with this, but I would take "sub-elite" all the way down to high school.

 

[d4m10n]

First, it is not up to me to validate anyone's identity.

Then why claim someone's identity is valid in the first place?

Honestly, though, it's not up to me either, except in the very rare cases when I'm the designated gatekeeper to an exclusive space, such as a safe space for discussions between atheists.

Second, I think one can be a feminist based on what they believe without necessarily being an activist and out on the front lines pushing for change.

In a democratic society, you are inevitably faced with choices which invariably affect the material condition of women, e.g. voting for the sort of Senators who would confirm Justice Kavanaugh in an effort to overturn Roe.

You are trying to find cases where someone identifies as something that contradicts their actual beliefs.

Beliefs and actions—which are both constitutive of identity IMO—but otherwise yes.

For example, I think there were early sects of Christianity which did not necessarily believe in Jesus divinity.

I didn't mention divinity, I did mention Messiahship (i.e. Christhood). If you don't believe in at least one Christ, you are not a Christian in any reasonable sense of the term.

And you frame an anti-vaxer as credulous of anti-vax propaganda.

Exactly, such as the propaganda saying that magic dirt or dewormer are more effective and healthful than mRNA vaccines.

Just as some in this topic are skeptical of psychology when it comes to trans issues.

Which specific bits of the DSM-5 are under contention here? (Last time I asked this question, it was thoroughly ducked.)

Which can also be described as credulous of anti-trans propaganda or studies.

I don't believe there are any studies designed to test trans activist claims. Whom do you have in mind here? Blanchard? Littman?

Which means it's also perfectly logical that there could be anomalous situations where heritable sex-linked psychological traits could appear with the wrong sex.

That makes perfect sense to me but once we start coming up with specific examples we typically run afoul of the sex-stereotypes retort from 2^nd wave feminist types.

Arguing over whether intersex conditions are a spectrum (in my view they are not) is dead end and not particularly relevant, though people on both sides like to pretend it's significant when convenient.

I really think DSDs are a whole other topic.

Given there is no cure for the mental side, the best treatment currently seems to be transition.

If there were some non-invasive way to help people reduce their dysphoria and come to accept their bodies as they are, would it not be roundly condemned as conversion therapy?

 

[Graham2001]

Found while searching the interwebs, something that I think belongs here, a case in the US where students are calling for their school to collect students prefered pronouns and place them on a big notice board for all to see. As a victim of bullying I can see some pretty serious problems with that.

A pair of seniors are posing a change to how Evanston Township High School allows students to address one another.


Nova Horrell and Maisy Kobernik-Pollack want the Evanston Township District 202 school board to institute new mandates and guidelines that would, they say, prevent "misgendering," or calling a boy "he" when the boy wants to be referred to as a "she."
The students spoke to the school board in a Nov. 8 school board meeting.


They want the school board to mandate that every student at ETHS to be required to provide their “pronouns” which would be presented “gallery” style on a “classroom wall” and “updated every few months.”

https://northcooknews.com/stories/6...-walls-being-transgender-is-a-beautiful-thing

 

[Sherkeu]

It counts as sub-elite, but should (IMO) definitely be subject to corrective regulation, since 1) it's a direct feeder into elite-level sport (in this case: National, Olympic and World Championship level), and 2) NCAA records are important in their own right, and should not be able to be distorted in this way.

I would hope the NCAA will take the necessary steps to prevent transgender swimmers from posting validated times. At a sub-elite level, I don't see any problem in transgender swimmers competing. I just think their times should not be allowed to count. And of course elite-level selectors can (and will) easily disregard the endeavours of transgender athletes in any case - they'll simply select the best cisgender athletes to take up to elite level training/competition.

The issue with this solution is that there are 8 finite lanes given in a swim competition. Athletes compete to get into those spots. If one, or more, of those swimmers in those lanes won't really count toward a win or a record, then why allow them there in the first place?
It's exhibition at that point, not competition. Other "qualified" competitors are excluded and never get into the lane they would have otherwise.

 

[Roboramma]

This "adult human female" mantra crap isn't helping the debate at all either. But that's what the anti-trans brigade have taught themselves to say by now......

Yeah, coherent definitions of terms are useless.

 

[Olmstead]

I would hope the NCAA will take the necessary steps to prevent transgender swimmers from posting validated times. At a sub-elite level, I don't see any problem in transgender swimmers competing. I just think their times should not be allowed to count. And of course elite-level selectors can (and will) easily disregard the endeavours of transgender athletes in any case - they'll simply select the best cisgender athletes to take up to elite level training/competition.

I have to ask, what's the point? If women could compete with men, they would, and there wouldn't be two categories. Why shouldn't transwomen simply compete against men?

 

[d4m10n]

At the same time, the issue fascinates me because there is no universal right or wrong. There are no easy solutions. No one on this thread is 100% right and no one on this thread is 100% wrong.

Just wanted to speak up in support of this view. Even if we all came to agreement on all the facts and science here, we would still balancing different folks' interests and values one against another.

Some people grew up with the expectation that women's leagues and locker rooms would be single sex. Some people are growing up today with the expectation that "trans women are women" will make that earlier set of expectations obsolete. We'll have to come to an accommodation somehow.

 

[Meadmaker]

The issue with this solution is that there are 8 finite lanes given in a swim competition. Athletes compete to get into those spots. If one, or more, of those swimmers in those lanes won't really count toward a win or a record, then why allow them there in the first place?
It's exhibition at that point, not competition. Other "qualified" competitors are excluded and never get into the lane they would have otherwise.

While I mostly agree, I admit I'm willing to compromise, a little bit. I don't mind that one of the people on the track, or in the pool, is doing an exhibition rather than a formal competition.

But the moment it gets into what you are talking about, where the male presence ends up taking away something from one of the female competitors, that's where it ends.

I've brought up the example of Terry Miller a lot and how Selina Soule, who came in 5th, would have come in third and gone to the New England regionals, except that she lost to Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood, two untransitioned transgirls. I think Selina deserved the right to advance to the regional competition, and it was unjust that that was taken away from her.

Also, my objection isn't based on anything related to money or scholarships. My objection isn't based on an impact to fan interest, or the potential to move on to "elite" competition. My objection is based on the fact that Selina worked hard to earn a reward, and that reward was not given to her, so that two other people with an inherent advantage could have their gender identity affirmed....or something. I think they could have had their gender identity affirmed just fine without taking away anything from Selina.

 

[Earthborn]

I'm talking about the social stereotypes of females being gentle, collaborative, soft-spoken, liking pink and glitter, and being subordinate to males. It's the assumption that a kinship with those behaviors is what makes them "women".

Who is making that assumption?

If someone identifies as a Christian, but doesn't believe in any Messiah?

Richard Dawkins identifies as a cultural Christian. If he were a citizen of for example Turkey, he would even have "Christian" in his passport.

My objection is based on the fact that Selina worked hard to earn a reward, and that reward was not given to her, so that two other people with an inherent advantage could have their gender identity affirmed....or something.

No matter what the rules are on who is allowed to participate in a sports competition, there will always be participants who worked hard and who may lose out on a reward because other people may have an advantage over them. Nothing in the rules defined by sports organisations says that anyone "deserves" a reward after hard work. All this proves is that turning games into winner-takes-all competitions sucks the fun out of the fun and games.

 

[Paul2]

No matter what the rules are on who is allowed to participate in a sports competition, there will always be participants who worked hard and who may lose out on a reward because other people may have an advantage over them. Nothing in the rules defined by sports organisations says that anyone "deserves" a reward after hard work. . . .

Do you see a place for women-only sports teams in colleges, for instance? If so, how does that fit with what you say directly above?

 

[theprestige]

All this proves is that turning games into winner-takes-all competitions sucks the fun out of the fun and games.

It doesn't prove anything of the sort. And in fact we have mountains of evidence that winner-takes-all competitions are tons of fun for competitors and spectators alike. We also have mountains of evidence that wherever a difference in ability takes away from the fun, competitors and spectators make divisions in the sport that restore the fun. Whether it's age groups, skill levels, weight classes, etc. Or sex. We have mountains of evidence that dividing winner-takes-all competitions by sex keeps them fun for everyone...

... Fun for everyone except transsexuals, obviously. Which brings us to what should be a very simple and straightforward policy question: What's more important? The fun of transsexual competitors, or the fun of everyone else in the competition?

One answer is that the majority fun should prevail.

Another answer is that transwomen suffer from a mental condition that is best treated by letting them have fun in sports, even if it means sucking out some of the fun for everyone else.

Yet another answer is that transwomen have a fundamental human right to have fun in sports, even if means sucking out some of the fun for everyone else.

Yet another answer is that competitive sports are stupid and wrong and anyone who wants to have fun doing them is stupid and wrong, so who cares if transsexuals take all the fun out of them.

I'm sure there are still more answers that are or could be given.

What's your answer?