Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[Meadmaker]

ETA: I didn't know other species even had birth certificates.

That was one of the rather unintentionally funny parts of the video. He really did say that the birth certificate wasn't important, and then lauch into animals as the explanation. I get what he meant to say, but in that particular case, he said it kind of poorly.

 

[Meadmaker]

BSTc sexual dimorphism is new to this thread and possibly relevant thereto as well.

I thought his discussion of male and female brain differences was the most detailed I had seen, and his claims about those differences and the relation to transgenderism were about the strongest I've seen. it seems to me that when data has been posted in these threads, the dimorphism was not as strong as the video implied. i.e. they said there was a correlation, whereas this video implied that the correlation was nearly absolute, i.e. that all trans people had the brain structures associate with the opposite gender.

That's a stronger claim than I have seen in the past.

But even if it happens to be true, I'm not sure how it would affect the debate in this thread. As Damion pointed out, any attempt to actually use that information as part of social policy would be rejected by most trans rights activists and, as is typical, those proposing using it would be branded as transphobes.

 

[Upchurch]

So....ok, then. What was the point?

When I was last involved with this thread (or, probably, one of its ancestors), many of the “transwomen/men are not women/men” side were still tying gender directly to sex, that transition were arbitrary, and using many of the myths debunked in that video. Eventually, I gave the thread up as a lost cause when I was accused of playing dishonest semantic games when I tried to explain that gender is a social construct, related to gender but not necessarily tied to it.

If that has changed and the thread is to the point of recognizing that transwomen possibly have some female physical traits and might in fact be women, and transmen the reverse, then I absolutely congratulate the thread for making more progress than I would have thought possible.

The Gen X cynicism in me suspects that is not actually the case.

 

[Meadmaker]

When I was last involved with this thread (or, probably, one of its ancestors), many of the “transwomen/men are not women/men” side were still tying gender directly to sex, that transition were arbitrary, and using many of the myths debunked in that video. Eventually, I gave the thread up as a lost cause when I was accused of playing dishonest semantic games when I tried to explain that gender is a social construct, related to gender but not necessarily tied to it.

If that has changed and the thread is to the point of recognizing that transwomen possibly have some female physical traits and might in fact be women, and transmen the reverse, then I absolutely congratulate the thread for making more progress than I would have thought possible.

The Gen X cynicism in me suspects that is not actually the case.

I definitely think there has been a change. i think there is more realization that transwomen might really be women now, but not in the form that you might expect, or wish. It's more now a realization that in the current set of vague and possible circular definitions, "woman" has become a term with no real significance.

So, yeah. Transwomen are women, so let's have sports divisions restricted to females, instead of being restricted to women.

I think there are a lot fewer people using words like "delusion" in the conversation than there used to be.

 

[Upchurch]

It's more now a realization that in the current set of vague and possible circular definitions, "woman" has become a term with no real significance.

That’s pretty much how words work. They have the significance we, as a society, give them for a given timeframe, e.g. “bad” or “literally”.

I suspect those hung up on that are possibly dealing with other issues.

 

[d4m10n]

That’s pretty much how words work. They have the significance we, as a society, give them for a given timeframe, e.g. “bad” or “literally”.

What non-circular definition of "woman" are you using which covers both cisgender women and transgender women? Is it just a matter of subjective self-identification, some set of observable characteristics, or something else?

 

[Upchurch]

What non-circular definition of "woman" are you using which covers both cisgender women and transgender women? Is it just a matter of subjective self-identification, some set of observable characteristics, or something else?

You misunderstand. I’m saying definitions of words are generally circular in nature because you use words to define words and there are no foundational or first-principle words.

ETA: As the joke goes, all words are made up.

 

[theprestige]

Amazing. Supposedly we have clear brain evidence that transwomen are in fact female, and somehow we're still bogged down in the definition of "woman". You'd think such biological evidence would cut right through the Gordian knot that plagues this thread.

 

[Upchurch]

Amazing. Supposedly we have clear brain evidence that transwomen are in fact female, and somehow we're still bogged down in the definition of "woman". You'd think such biological evidence would cut right through the Gordian knot that plagues this thread.

They’re categorically different things. That’s like having the full genetic sequence for a rose and, yet, still be frustrated that we can’t agree why roses smell good or look pretty.

 

[d4m10n]

You misunderstand. I’m saying definitions of words are generally circular in nature because you use words to define words and there are no foundational or first-principle words.

Generally we don't use words to define themsevles though. If your definition of woman is "anyone who identifies as a woman," it isn't particularly helpful.

 

[Meadmaker]

That’s pretty much how words work. They have the significance we, as a society, give them for a given timeframe, e.g. “bad” or “literally”.

I suspect those hung up on that are possibly dealing with other issues.

Right.

The problem comes when we take it to the next step, which, omitting a few steps here and there, ends up with, "All words are just human constructs, so I should be able to go into the girls' locker room."

The thing is that although "woman" has become pretty much meaningless, the original concept, as described in the video you posted, is still pretty important. There's still one sex that has the babies. We kind of need some words to describe that. If we don't want to use "woman", let's use something else. And then that's where it falls apart, because as soon as we try to come up with a word, the only word that consistently gets tossed about in that conversation is "TRANSPHOBE!!!!!!!!"

So, it's true that words don't matter. A rose by any other name would still smell sweet. It's also true that a penis by any other name can stil play an important role in the creation of babies, and that is so important to the human condition that it would be nice to have a word that describes people who have penises, and they would still have penises no matter what you call the people, or the penises.

 

[Meadmaker]

To add one more thing. The video that Upchurch posted went to great lengths to point out that sex really isn't as binary as some people make it out to be, but I think where my positions would differ from the video's creator would be the implications of that. It's true. It isn't just XX versus XY. It isn't just penis and vagina. It isn't just testesterone and estrogen. And yet.....now that we find that male seahorses can become pregnant, exactly why does that matter to the decision about whether Lia Thomas can race in the women's division?

 

[theprestige]

They’re categorically different things. That’s like having the full genetic sequence for a rose and, yet, still be frustrated that we can’t agree why roses smell good or look pretty.

Sure. But if there's an actual biological basis for identifying femaleness in cismen, that cuts right through a lot of the controversy about where transwomen get to go and what rights they're entitled to. We don't have to waste time wondering if being a woman means wearing a dress. We can skip straight to questions about whether being female in the brain confers the right of access to women's shelters and women's sports. We can leave aside the whole morass of gender as a social construct, and deal directly with the matter of where transsexuals fit into the system of sex segregation.

 

[Upchurch]

Generally we don't use words to define themsevles though. If your definition of woman is "anyone who identifies as a woman," it isn't particularly helpful.

Although that sometimes happens, but what we do often see are words that, if you follow the words in the definition can eventually lead back to the word you are trying to define.

Just now, I looked up “happy” and it’s definition included “pleasure”. I looked up “pleasure” and its definition included “happy”. Yet, somehow, we aren’t having an existential crisis with the concept of happiness, right?

If the definition of “woman” were just “a female human”, is that particularly useful? How female does a human need to be in order to be a woman?

 

[theprestige]

If the definition of “woman” were just “a female human”, is that particularly useful?

Yes it is. Exhibit A: Women's sports.

 

[Upchurch]

The thing is that although "woman" has become pretty much meaningless, the original concept, as described in the video you posted, is still pretty important.

Now, hold on. I never said words were meaningless or moreover that “woman”, as a word, is meaningless. We give words meaning as a society, even if we can’t give one-size-fits-all definitions. And we English speakers are particularly bad at that.

 

[Upchurch]

Yes it is. Exhibit A: Women's sports.

You stopped quoting too soon. It’s the next sentence that is the puzzler.

ETA: And here I was told folks in the thread already knew and understood this stuff.

 

[d4m10n]

If the definition of “woman” were just “a female human”, is that particularly useful?

The set of humans who were born with ova isn't remotely fuzzy at the boundaries, so yeah, I'd say it's useful.

How female does a human need to be in order to be a woman?

Being born with ova is enough to be considered female. Womanhood requires growing up as well.

 

[Upchurch]

The set of humans who were born with ova isn't remotely fuzzy at the boundaries, so yeah, I'd say it's useful.

Huh. You skipped the next sentence, too. Are you sure you understood the video I posted?

 

[Elaedith]

Now, hold on. I never said words were meaningless or moreover that “woman”, as a word, is meaningless. We give words meaning as a society, even if we can’t give one-size-fits-all definitions. And we English speakers are particularly bad at that.

To make it not meaningless you must refer to something that is separate from the word used to label it.

For example, a gay person is a person sexually attracted to those of the same sex. An introvert is a person who has higher baseline levels of cortical arousal and prefers more solitary activities due to being easily over stimulated.

If a gay person was defined as 'anyone who identifies as gay' that would mean somebody who is only attracted to the opposite sex can self-identify as gay. If an introvert is 'anyone who feels like an introvert' then an extrovert can self-identify as an introvert.