Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[d4m10n]

This is complete nonsense. If TW were treated like women, there'd be no need for the phrase.

I think it's fair to suppose that the author intends us to understand "trans women are women" to be a statement about how trans women ought to be treated by others.

TW will never be broadly treated like actual women for the obvious reason that they do not have female anatomy/can never fulfill that reproductive role.

An individual with CAIS will still be treated like a woman despite being infertile, because she is perceived to be female by all concerned. Apologies for mixing intersex issues in here, but it seems an apt analogy to those who pass for the opposite sex in (non-sexual) social situations.

Choice quotes

I meant to share one of the (IMO) choicest quotes earlier. Here it is:

Stock et al believe that they can use “female” as a predicate to define “woman” in ways that will exclude trans women, but trans women will (I would have thought self-evidently) then simply contest their definition of “female,” on the same exact grounds as we contested the definition of “woman.”

By this point, I've come around to the idea that problematizing conventional language without providing a clarifying alternative is a deliberately cynical move.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I think it's fair to suppose that the author intends us to understand "trans women are women" to be a statement about how trans women ought to be treated by others.

An individual with CAIS will still be treated like a woman despite being infertile, because she is perceived to be female by all concerned. Apologies for mixing intersex issues in here, but it seems an apt analogy to those who pass for the opposite sex in (non-sexual) social situations.

Yes, I don't think mixing in DSDs is appropriate here- since TWs largely don't have DSDs. But I think you're missing my bigger point here. It's not how well they can pass (though they largely don't), it's that males have a strong urge to reproduce - once they know someone is non-female, they're largely going to lose interest. & those that don't (lose interest), are - shall we say - less likely to pass on their genes. In that regard, even if the term "woman" were to change, TW would still be seen as a less desirable choice.

I meant to share one of the (IMO) choicest quotes earlier. Here it is: By this point, I've come around to the idea that problematizing conventional language without providing a clarifying alternative is a deliberately cynical move.

Yes - And that was another sign that is a deeply flawed misogynistic movement. It's disturbing to see Rachel Levine listed as the first female of her rank, that current jeopardy champ being listed as longest reigning female, the recent golden globe TW winner claiming to be female, etc.

 

[LondonJohn]

Men can have babies, and if you disagree, or even if just want to clarify what is meant by the assertion, you are an idiot, a bigot, or both.

Yes, some men - which is to say some transmen - can have babies.

As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition. And therefore, for example, transmen are men. Transmen are not females pretending to be men. Transmen are not delusional or defective females whose mental illness makes them think they're men.

And in the present day, anyone who wishes to debate or deny this point is by no means necessarily "an idiot, a bigot, or both" (nice strawman though). However, people holding that point of view are likely to be ignorant and misinformed. Science and progressive governments/legislatures are - fortunately - capable of a better and deeper understanding.


Ain't it strange how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe - sincerely believe - that black people were by definition inferior. And how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe that gay people were either deluded or mentally ill. By 2040, those of us still kicking around will note how strange it was that large swathes of the general public used to hold views like "transwomen are men in skirts" or "transmen are just females pretending to be men".

 

[Paul2]

. . . transgender identity is a valid, lived condition.

Agreed

And therefore, for example, transmen are men.

As a matter of logic, that does not follow, even given the following:

Transmen are not females pretending to be men.

Agreed.

Transmen are not delusional or defective females whose mental illness makes them think they're men.

Agreed.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes, some men - which is to say some transmen - can have babies.

Great. Wonderful. It's not the historic definition of "men", but whatever. "Men" is just a word. We can change definitions. Very well.

But....here's where that runs into some difficulty, with the "clarification" part.

As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition.

Ok. Being transgender is a valid, lived, condition. I'm going to switch my gender example, just because it will be easier to describe what I'm thinking.

A person with functioning penis and testicles can identify as a woman. That's a valid, lived, condition. Ok. So far, so good. However, what if that person identifies as someone who can have a baby? Well that certainly isn't a valid, lived, condition. And, jumping in before someone says something stupid, it isn't specifically about fertility. It's about being the sex and sharing all or most of the anatomy that would make having babies possible. I think in this thread, we can still say "female". If you have functioning penis and testicles, you can have an identity as a woman and that is a valid, lived, condition, but an identity as a female would not be a valid, lived condition.

We're all on the same page, aren't we? There's nothing controversial above, is there?

The author of the rejoinder essay posted earlier recognized the problem of doing that. If we stop using the word "woman" to mean "female", there will still be people who insist on treating females different than males, instead of treating men differently than women. People will still insist that biological sex matters, and so the woman who wrote the essay declares that they will fight back against any attempt to have any word that would imply that there is some significant shared traits among cisgender women and transgender men, that is different than the shared traits among cisgender men and transgender women.

Unfortunately for her wishes, that division along biological sex is still significant, and try as she might, she won't be able to convince people to ignore that division. Not only will they not ignore that division, they will insist on naming it.

And therefore, for example, transmen are men. Transmen are not females pretending to be men. Transmen are not delusional or defective females whose mental illness makes them think they're men.

Fine. Although, there's some more definition that we can discuss, but nothing we haven't been through before. I don't object to the above.

And in the present day, anyone who wishes to debate or deny this point is by no means necessarily "an idiot, a bigot, or both" (nice strawman though). However, people holding that point of view are likely to be ignorant and misinformed.

Hmmm....they aren't idiots, but they are ignorant and misinformed. And saying "idiot" is a strawman.


Oh, wait. You didn't say that they are ignorant and misinformed. You said that they are likely to be ignorant and misinformed. So it is possible that the people who say that might possibly not be ignorant and misinformed. I'm glad that's cleared up. (Emphasis modified from original.)

ETA: And importantly, it's hard to see which point "that point of view" was meant to refer to. Was it the point of view that transmen are females pretending to be men, or the point of view that men can't have babies? Or that transmen aren't men? There was some sort of shift there.

Science and progressive governments/legislatures are - fortunately - capable of a better and deeper understanding.

I'm not sure "science" has weighed in on the subject completely. I think science agrees partially with your points, and you want to carry the general agreement beyond what science actually says. For example, what does science say about where Lia Thomas should swim, where Terry Miller should run, or which section of the spa Darren Merager ought to use? What does science say about who gets to go into the girls' bathroom? Does science have anything to say about whether it would be appropriate to hang a new sign that says "females", and only allow females into that space?

Ain't it strange how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe - sincerely believe - that black people were by definition inferior. And how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe that gay people were either deluded or mentally ill. By 2040, those of us still kicking around will note how strange it was that large swathes of the general public used to hold views like "transwomen are men in skirts" or "transmen are just females pretending to be men".

*yawn*. See previous responses.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

We should just rename the Scotsman fallacy "no true transwoman"

There's an unambiguous demarcation as to whether this boy was requesting to be treated as a girl or was otherwise claiming to be a girl for the purposes of using gender segregated spaces. Either he was or he wasn't. This is one example where there isn't much grey zone. There's a meaningful distinction between a boy gender-bending in their clothing choices and someone presenting themselves as a trans girl and requesting the appropriate recognition.

There has yet to be a shred of evidence that this boy did so. Occasionally showing up to school wearing girl's clothing doesn't mean he was openly using the women's restroom, locker rooms, or otherwise meaningfully identifying as a girl for any way that matters in context of this bathroom freakout.

The time to figure out if this kid was using or abusing a trans-inclusive policy to access the women's restroom is probably before going on crusade, not after.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's an unambiguous demarcation as to whether this boy was requesting to be treated as a girl or was otherwise claiming to be a girl for the purposes of using gender segregated spaces. Either he was or he wasn't. This is one example where there isn't much grey zone. There's a meaningful distinction between a boy gender-bending in their clothing choices and someone presenting themselves as a trans girl and requesting the appropriate recognition.

There has yet to be a shred of evidence that this boy did so. Occasionally showing up to school wearing girl's clothing doesn't mean he was openly using the women's restroom, locker rooms, or otherwise meaningfully identifying as a girl for any way that matters in context of this bathroom freakout.

The time to figure out if this kid was using or abusing a trans-inclusive policy to access the women's restroom is probably before going on crusade, not after.

Absolutely.

And in any case.... irrespective of the above, this boy's offending clearly had nothing whatsoever to do with the "Reefer Madness" hysteria tropes wrt male perverts abusing the notion of transgender rights to enter the women's/girls' bathrooms to commit offences against whichever females happened to be in the bathroom at that time.

No: this boy was going into the girls' bathroom, by invitation, to have (what started as entirely consensual) sex with a girl. And the sex got out of hand and turned into a criminal act. Nothing to do with the "transgirl/transwoman bogeyman" caricature so beloved of certain......"gender critical" people.

 

[d4m10n]

As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition.

Can anyone think of an example of an invalid lived condition?

An old friend of mine lives with Tourette syndrome^WP. Valid or not?

Another old friend of mine lives with bipolar disorder^WP. Valid or not?

Several old friends live with various degrees of PTSD^WP. Valid or not?

If the idea of validity is going to do so much work, it would be interesting to know how far it goes.

 

[Meadmaker]

There has yet to be a shred of evidence that this boy did so.

For some definition of "shred".

 

[theprestige]

As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition.

Jesus Christ not this again.

"Valid lived condition" doesn't clarify anything. It offers no guidance on policy or social convention.

Homosexuality is a valid lived condition.

Pedophilia is a valid lived condition.

Both of these are valid lived conditions. But public policy and social convention for each are wildly different. Hell, my own personal approach to each is wildly different. I think one should be embraced and normalized. I think the other is a tragic affliction that should be treated and accommodated where possible, but never acted on.

But Punxsatawny "Valid Lived Condition" Phil has poked his head up and seen his shadow, so I guess we'll have six more installments of this thread now.

---

Valid lived condition has to be the most empty-headed argument from the trans-inclusionary side. It's like the apotheosis of the whole approach of draining words of all their meaning, under the mistaken impression that this somehow makes the argument stronger, rather than worthless.

 

[d4m10n]

Pedophilia is a valid lived condition.

I don't expect LJ to concur.

Dunno how far his idiosyncratic idea of validity goes, but probably not that far.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't expect LJ to concur.

Dunno how far his idiosyncratic idea of validity goes, but probably not that far.

I wonder if it goes as far as a male identifying as someone who can have a baby. That seems invalid to me, but I hesitate to speak for others.

 

[Meadmaker]

I wonder if it goes as far as a male identifying as someone who can have a baby. That seems invalid to me, but I hesitate to speak for others.

But I would be even more interested in finding out LondonJohn's perspective on what science has to say about where Lia Thomas should swim.

 

[Louden Wilde]

I wonder if it goes as far as a male identifying as someone who can have a baby. That seems invalid to me, but I hesitate to speak for others.

Despite assurances from TRAs that they would not conflate sex and gender, we're seeing more TWs listed or IDing as female (as I noted a few posts up). Some TRAs refer to having babies as 'cis privilege' and/or demanding that uterus transplants be made available to TW

Note - same ogre involved in getting Vancouver rape crisis center defunded for not accepting males.

 

[theprestige]

But I would be even more interested in finding out LondonJohn's perspective on what science has to say about where Lia Thomas should swim.

Actually at this point I would be even more interested in finding out LJ's perspective on pedophilia as a valid lived condition, and what it can tell us about public policy regarding transsexuality.

I predict a flurry of personal attacks, "cleverly" disguised.

 

[JihadJane]

Yes, some men - which is to say some transmen - can have babies.

As for "clarification", all that needs to be said is that transgender identity is a valid, lived condition. And therefore, for example, transmen are men. Transmen are not females pretending to be men. Transmen are not delusional or defective females whose mental illness makes them think they're men.

And in the present day, anyone who wishes to debate or deny this point is by no means necessarily "an idiot, a bigot, or both" (nice strawman though). However, people holding that point of view are likely to be ignorant and misinformed. Science and progressive governments/legislatures are - fortunately - capable of a better and deeper understanding.


Ain't it strange how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe - sincerely believe - that black people were by definition inferior. And how large swathes of the good old general public used to believe that gay people were either deluded or mentally ill. By 2040, those of us still kicking around will note how strange it was that large swathes of the general public used to hold views like "transwomen are men in skirts" or "transmen are just females pretending to be men".

No, outside of magical thinking, transmen are not men.

Trans activism's crude misappropriation of black, gay and lesbian liberation is one of the ugliest aspects of its unprincipled, emotionally manipulative politicking.

 

[Lithrael]

Note - same ogre involved in getting Vancouver rape crisis center defunded for not accepting males.

You make it sound like they were forced to close up shop. They have an annual budget of over a million dollars, and lost their $35k grant from City of Vancouver. They also (eventually) won the case against them brought by Kimberly Nixon (where they were arguing that she was not a suitable volunteer rape crisis peer counselor, as she didn’t entirely qualify as a peer).

This is all in line with my opinion that we are all still shaking out what makes sense and it’ll eventually slope off to something reasonably equitable.

To be clear, it’s my opinion that while trans women certainly need crisis support, there is nothing at all wrong with having some shelters among many that cater to cis women only. If there was a severe shortage of accessible trans inclusive shelters it would be a different story. I do feel that losing city funding is an acceptable consequence, for now. I also feel that harassment campaigns against such shelters are utterly misplaced and deeply reprehensible.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

For some definition of "shred".

Probably more than what was presented at the time. Maybe standards are just different when you're part of a mob.

Wouldn't you agree that the vigorousness of the right wing freakout over this case does not seem to be appropriately grounded in fact? They seem to be extremely mad about something that does not seem to be sufficiently established to me.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You make it sound like they were forced to close up shop. They have an annual budget of over a million dollars, and lost their $35k grant from City of Vancouver. They also (eventually) won the case against them brought by Kimberly Nixon (where they were arguing that a trans woman was not a suitable rape crisis counselor).

This is all in line with my opinion that we are all still shaking out what makes sense and it’ll eventually slope off to something reasonably equitable.

It's almost as if these TERFs are not exactly arguing in good faith. Surely there's no personal animus at play here.

 

[Lithrael]

Well, some loud and/or angry TRA's want things that are arguably unreasonable, therefore the whole trans movement is antifeminist.

To the argument’s credit, at least a couple of the over-reachers are actually in politics and have wrangled a little influence.