Discussion: Transwomen are not women (Part 7)

[theprestige]

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.

If we're defining woman as synonymous with the female side of the biological binary, then the next sentence isn't puzzling at all. Exhibit A: Women's sports.

But we can look at it some other way, if you prefer. How about sexual attraction? To what degree does a male have to pass as female, to be sexually attractive to heterosexual males and homosexual females?

 

[d4m10n]

Huh. You skipped the next sentence, too.

You're too quick for me. Check the edit.

Are you sure you understood the video I posted?

Not at all. As mentioned earlier, I'm still puzzling over how non-human animals can have genders.

 

[Upchurch]

If we're defining woman as synonymous with the female side of the biological binary, then the next sentence isn't puzzling at all. Exhibit A: Women's sports.

But the whole point is that animals aren’t always biologically one thing or the other. You were one of those that told me this was well covered material. Was that not true?

 

[Upchurch]

Being born with ova is enough to be considered female.

But that’s not always true, though, is it?

 

[d4m10n]

But that’s not always true, though, is it?

Can you think of a specific exception?

(I cannot, offhand.)

 

[theprestige]

But the whole point is that animals aren’t always biologically one thing or the other. You were one of those that told me this was well covered material. Was that not true?

With very rare exceptions, completely outside the scope of the trans-inclusion debate, humans are indeed biologically one thing or the other. This thread would be very different, and a lot shorter, if we were actually discussing intersex rights and inclusion. But we're not.

 

[Upchurch]

Can you think of a specific exception?

(I cannot, offhand.)

6:25ish in the video I posted is the first specific example just in that video.

You also told me this was already well covered information. Are you sure about that?

 

[Upchurch]

With very rare exceptions, completely outside the scope of the trans-inclusion debate, humans are indeed biologically one thing or the other. This thread would be very different, and a lot shorter, if we were actually discussing intersex rights and inclusion. But we're not.

Okay, clearly I’ve been misled about how much progress this thread has made since the last time I dipped into it. Gen X cynicism for the win.

 

[d4m10n]

The discussion originally about whether unambiguous males who competed as males should become eligible to compete as females has been sidetracked into questions about intersex issues more times than I care to count.

 

[Upchurch]

The discussion originally about whether unambiguous males who originally competed as males should become eligible to compete as females has been sidetracked into questions about intersex issues more times than I care to count.

Unambiguous, you say? Hm.

I said it before and I’ll say it again, this thread will not age well.

 

[d4m10n]

6:25ish in the video I posted is the first specific example just in that video.

I'm guessing you're talking about Ovotesticular Disorder of Sex Development here. Is that correct?

Unambiguous, you say?

Hubbard was unambiguously male, yes.

 

[Elaedith]

Okay, clearly I’ve been misled about how much progress this thread has made since the last time I dipped into it. Gen X cynicism for the win.

If you are still trying to push some ideological claptrap about sex being a spectrum because intersex (actually DSDs) and implying this has something to do with people identifying as transgender, you are indeed underestimating how much progress has been made. This has all now been debunked multiple times. The video is not even a good example of this nonsense.

Aside from anything else, this rubbish is highly upsetting to many people who do actually have differences/disorders of sexual development. Some of them are now being conflated with people who identify as transgender and told their medical condition is an 'identity'. DSD activists who speak out against this get harassed and their livelihoods threatened.

 

[Paul2]

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.

No, because there are two very different things going on. Saying a cat is thing with feline characteristics gets no one anywhere, because the definition of feline would presumably be cat-like animals. That is truly a circular definition. (If you were to actually list characteristics of felines in the definition of "feline," you could just as well skip that step and just use those same characteristics in the definition of a cat.)

That is a very different thing than saying a cat is an animal that has certain type of teeth, certain body shape, certain behavioral mysteries characteristics, etc. You're still using words to define "cat" but you've gone down one level of detail, and that's merely what a definition is.

This type of definition actually does some work, it actually tells us something about what is being defined. If you want to say that's circular because it still uses other words, you're not wrong, but it's still a definition that its useful, where saying a cat is merely a feline doesn't do much (assuming you don't apply the characteristics of those animal to the definition of "feline," which you might as well have applied to "cat" anyway, as I said above). It's making a synonym, not a definition.

 

[Paul2]

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?

It's the difference between a synonym and a definition. A definition gets you detail about the thing being defined - its characteristics, or maybe is use, or whatever else. Synonyms are just swapping words.

Part of the definition of happiness includes (implicitly, if not explicitly) it being the feeling people have when they exhibit certain behaviors that we think it's useful to gather together under one umbrella (laughing, certain facial expressions, etc.).

 

[Meadmaker]

But that’s not always true, though, is it?

Words. Definitions.

Being born with ova makes you.....born with ova. Using historically used definitions of words, it also makes you female, and yes that is always true in humans.

But we could redefine the word "female" to mean something else, but now we need a new word to describe people born with ova, and people who have neither ova nor sperm, but have substantial physiological similarity to the typical form of someone with ova.

We used to call those people "women", and then we started with "female", and biologists probably have some longer word, and it goes on an on.

But.....once we settle on a word, where does Lia Thomas swim?

The way I see it, a lot of people are tyring to use the existence of rare conditions as a way to muddy the waters. When Terry Miller started running as a girl, she had unambiguous functional testicles, and was capable of impregnating other girls, and she ran faster than all of the other girls. This collection of facts is not coincidence, no matter how you define the terms.

 

[theprestige]

But.....once we settle on a word, where does Lia Thomas swim?

This right here is the only question worth answering. Does Upchurch's video answer it? No. Does Upchurch answer it? No.

 

[d4m10n]

Thomas should swim in the open category, ofc.

 

[Olmstead]

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.

You are simply wrong. You are trying to use linguistics to argue a scientific point, and not even very well. Apropos, really.

In science and logic, definitions can never be circular. Each level needs to go higher or deeper, but it can never circle back.

What is a tree? Something that looks like a tree.
What is a tree? Something that looks like a tree.

What is a woman? Someone who identifies as a woman.
What is a woman? Someone who identifies as a woman.

What is a tree?
A woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.

 

[Elaedith]

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

I actually thought this had been discussed, but it might have been because I was doing some reading on this and intending to post but didn't get time.

Possibly BSTc differences are the strongest area for claiming that there might be some type of innate 'sex identity', because they are not confounded with sexual orientation. Other claims of neurological differences underlying gender dysphoria are based on studies that confound transgender identity or GD with sexual orientation, and when the latter is controlled for in more recent studies, the only differences associated with GD involve brain areas involved in self/body perception, not sex differences.

From what I understand, differences in the BSTc relate to sex but not sexual orientation, and some studies have associated being transgender with having a BSTc size closer to the identified sex. Complications are that the BSTc difference between males and females does not emerge until puberty (whereas early-onset GD emerges earlier) and is also affected by cross-sex hormone treatment. I need to look in more detail at some more recent studies.

Aside from that, as has already been stated this has nothing to do with gender identity ideology. Supposing it eventually emerges that having a BSTc that resembles the other sex is associated with GD that will persist and lead to wanting to transition. If a way is found to detect these differences before puberty (perhaps improved methodology) it could potentially be useful for distinguishing those cases of early-onset GD that will persist after puberty from those that have other causes and will resolve with puberty. That could then lead to better decisions about treatment.


But activists will object to a situation where treatment such as puberty blockers is based on objective evidence such as a brain scan, because the primacy of subjective identity of material reality is fundamental to the ideology, (as is the need to deconstruct biological sex altogether). It might also emerge that this difference distinguishes different categories of transgender identity (e.g. early-onset GD from autogynephilia). Again this is ideologically unacceptable because the narrative denies the existence of AGP or different types of gender dysphoria. In the current climate it would be difficult for researchers to get any funding for research that risks finding the wrong thing.

 

[d4m10n]

Excellent post, good points all. [emoji106]

[Trans] activists will object to a situation where treatment such as puberty blockers is based on objective evidence such as a brain scan, because the primacy of subjective identity [over] material reality is fundamental to the ideology...

I'm afraid that even if we could diagnose gender dysphoria close to 100% of the time based on well validated easily replicable neurological criteria, gender activists would still tar the idea of screening for treatment in that manner as truscummy transmedicalism and unwarranted gatekeeping. This is part of why I don't think improved science (is) will help solve what is essentially a values problem (ought) in this particular case.