Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[d4m10n]

If we assume that gender is a social construct, and that children are by definition still in the process of socializing, then by extension children are not yet certain of their gender.

Do proponents of self-ID say that gender identity (as opposed to gender expression) is socially constructed rather than innate?

 

[theprestige]

Do proponents of self-ID say that gender identity (as opposed to gender expression) is socially constructed rather than innate?

I thought some of them did, at least, but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe it's changed in the past few years. If they come down on one side or the other of this question, then part 8 of this thread will have not been wasted, in my opinion.

My guess is there's been a slow but steady shift from "mutable and ephemeral social construct of gender" to "biologically innate awareness of one's 'real' sex". Mainly because it's pretty damn hard to make a convincing argument that the former should be binding on others in any way.

If one assumes, as I do, that gender is a social construct, then one might conclude, as I do, that children by definition cannot fully know their gender. That's something they'll continue to explore up into adulthood before reaching a satisfactory conclusion. Just like many young adults experiment sexually in college etc.

So if Dr. Ehrensaft means gender as a social construct, then I think she's wrong that children can know it. On the other hand, if she says gender but in practice means sex, then that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[TomB]

Do proponents of self-ID say that gender identity (as opposed to gender expression) is socially constructed rather than innate?

I think the idea, as you suggest, is that gender is innate. However gender roles and how gender is expressed is a social construct. (Gender norms/stereotypes are cultural.)

 

[Louden Wilde]

The arguments on both sides are inconsistent. Especially when you are considering multiple posters. ST and LJ's posts, for example, are not always in agreement at certain levels of detail, and they do not always use the same terminology. Similarly, The Prestige and Meadmaker's positions are not identical, and I'm not sure they always use the same terminology.


That's great. you do you. However, as long as you know what ST and LJ mean by "woman" and they know what you mean by "woman" a conversation on the actual concept can be had. Diverting to a conversation over labels impedes the more important conversations about the concepts of what those labels represent.

Also, language and terminology change and evolve. Words fall into and out of use and change meanings over time.
.

Seriously, you think me using a standard definition of female and male that works across taxa*/has great explanatory power is "me being me"? No, sorry- there are not even close to being comparable definitions here. Not for 'woman' that we've ever heard and certainly not for female. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that whatever (actual) women call themselves, TW would try to horn in on it.


On that note, why do you not think women (not including males) should get to decide what to call themselves?

Essentially, they (TRAs) are trying to win the societal argument by muddying what are clear terms - hence their frequent use of people with DSDs ('intersex') as shields.

* and unless you're a creationist, it better work cross species - at least through mammals and other vertebrates, since it's very clear it's the same process. I've been a part of legit discussions like that - one of my grad school papers at the AMNH on using species in phylogenetic analysis got me into a lot of discussions on nature of species. Similarly, epigenetics has had competing definitions. There are no similar arguments for female. It also seems pretty clear that actual women do not want to cede the standard definition for them - see the link in last thread to Michelle Goldberg's column on the ACLU censoring RBG's use of the word woman - The comments section was filled with women who were clear that this was about gender ideology.

You will note that the other side (your side, towards which I lean in many areas) is also inconsistent and does not have a single coherent position.

No examples of where I (or "my side") has been inconsistent? For the record, I hold that females merit their own spaces and representation. These should not be compromised because of the psychological distress of a few males or anyone, for that matter.

Do you think it's right/progress for women that Rachel Levine is touted as the first female to hold their rank? That jeopardy champ Amy Schneider is touted the highest earning female winner? The TW who just won a golden globe in the women's category and claimed to be female? The city rep position here (NYC) that Elanor Roosevelt started for females (explicitly) but had the wording changed a few years ago to 'woman' and is now held by a TW? Lia Thomas smashing girls swimming records?

Again, women and girls are discriminated against/oppressed on the basis of their sex. You can't identify into that.

Moreover, I think this current gender ideology is a social contagion and is going to mess up quite a few kids lives (see posts above)

 

[lionking]

Yes, but he makes an exception for "elite level" sports. i.e. He has expressed in the past that some level of segregation by sex is acceptable in "elite level" sports, but not in school based or comparable competitions.


At least, that is what I understood from his previous entries.

And this argument infuriates me. Contact sports played below elite level are seeing natal women injured by untransitioned, male bodied transwomen. I care greatly about that.

 

[TomB]

Seriously, you think me using a standard definition of female and male that works across taxa*/has great explanatory power is "me being me"? No, sorry- there are not even close to being comparable definitions here. Not for 'woman' that we've ever heard and certainly not for female. Moreover, it seems pretty clear that whatever (actual) women call themselves, TW would try to horn in on it.

Apparently, you do not comprehend.

I'm not talking about the terms for sex (male and female). I'm talking about the terms for gender in the context of these discussions. Posting definitions of sex is a side argument of limited significance. For the most part, in my reading, the transgender voices consider sex and gender to be different things and recognize the differences between the sexes. Even the "is sex binary or a spectrum" arguments are side conversations that really have little to do with the main topic, which is gender.

On that note, why do you not think women (not including males) should get to decide what to call themselves?

First, thanks for making up a position out of whole cloth and assigning it to me. That's really neat how you do that.

But if I were to make an argument that relates even somewhat along those lines, I would ask instead: What makes you think anyone owns language? what makes you think there is an authority...any authority that gets to decide what a word means, how it changes, or that gets to veto when it changes? That's not how it works.

Language, words and meanings change. Resisting a particular change in meaning is fine: make a case that it should not change and suggest alternate terminology. It will be adopted or it won't, but no one has veto power over those changes.

But I'm wasn't making, that argument, and I certainly wasn't making the argument you fabricated above. I'd appreciate it if you didn't attribute false positions to me in the future, OK?

Essentially, they (TRAs) are trying to win the societal argument by muddying what are clear terms - hence their frequent use of people with DSDs ('intersex') as shields.

That's your interpretation of a tactic. I don't think it's a correct interpretation of their motivation. I think they use the examples of DSDs because they honestly think that it supports their hypothesis: that sex is a spectrum. I disagree with them. I'm a biologist. I don't think DSDs demonstrate a spectrum any more than people with congenital conditions where they are born with six fingers or one arm indicates that the number of fingers or limbs in humans is a spectrum.

But being incorrect, even tenaciously so, does not indicate some kind of wierd motivation.

* and unless you're a creationist, it better work cross species - at least through mammals and other vertebrates, since it's very clear it's the same process.

OK, this is a bit bizarre. I'm not a creationist, but I don't know why being one would allow some sort of exception that being a non-creationist would not.

That's pretty off the wall.

I've been a part of legit discussions like that - one of my grad school papers at the AMNH on using species in phylogenetic analysis got me into a lot of discussions on nature of species. Similarly, epigenetics has had competing definitions. There are no similar arguments for female. It also seems pretty clear that actual women do not want to cede the standard definition for them - see the link in last thread to Michelle Goldberg's column on the ACLU censoring RBG's use of the word woman - The comments section was filled with women who were clear that this was about gender ideology.

I really don't care about your grad school papers.

But as far as women objecting to the changing definition of woman, more power to them. I support them making their objections. But ultimately, the definition will change or not. No one has the authority to change the definition, but neither does anyone have the authority to veto a change in definition. Language evolves. Time will tell where it goes.

In the meantime, there are issues that need to be discussed that are more important than terminology. If both sides waste their time objecting to the terminology of the other, then those things don't really get talked about. There are two definitions in play. Each side knows what the other means. The terminology discussion can be sidelined so that the more significant things...how does a person in a given circumstance get to live their life and how does that affect other people?

No examples of where I (or "my side") has been inconsistent?

I didn't say you were inconsistent. I said that there is not a consistent position on either side. There are differences between the positions held by Meadmaker, ThePrestige, Emily's Cat, yourself and myself. (Because guess what? in general terms you and I are on the same side of this issue, though sometimes it reminds me of that one time when Rush Limbaugh stated a position I agreed with. Of course then he explained his reasoning for that position which was completely different from my reasoning for that position and just left me shaking my head.)

For the record, I hold that females merit their own spaces and representation. These should not be compromised because of the psychological distress of a few males or anyone, for that matter.

And my position is that we have never needed laws to enforce social norms and I don't think laws in either direction are needed. I also think social norms, like language evolve and change. I don't think they have evolved to the point where we have shared spaces like in Starship Troopers, though they have been trending in that general direction. A also don't think that evolution of norms should be forced. Nor should they be forcibly prevented.

Do you think it's right/progress for women that Rachel Levine is touted as the first female to hold their rank?

No, I think they got the terminology wrong. But I'm not going to expend a lot of effort getting upset about it. I can disagree with the terminology without taking anything away from Ms. Levine's accomplishments.

That jeopardy champ Amy Schneider is touted the highest earning female winner?

Since I never really considered proficiency at trivia to be related to sex or gender, I could really care less. I don't understand why anyone sorts Jeopardy winners by men/women male/female in the first place.

The TW who just won a golden globe in the women's category and claimed to be female?

The Golden Globes, or the Oscars or whatever can set the rules for eligibility in a category however they want. I don't care. And I'm not going to get upset if an individual uses the wrong terminology.

The city rep position here (NYC) that Elanor Roosevelt started for females (explicitly) but had the wording changed a few years ago to 'woman' and is now held by a TW?

Mixed feelings.

Philosophically, I believe that such set asides should be a temporary phenomenon that should go away as equality, if not of outcome then at least of opportunity, but the democratic party can do what it wants.

Lia Thomas smashing girls swimming records?

And I disagree with her competing in the female division. That's because I think segregation is sports is by sex, not gender. (I can't really think of a reason that gender differences would require segregation, but I can think of reasons why sex differences would.)

But I also think that sports leagues get to set their own rules and criteria and allow exceptions when they feel it's justified.

Again, women and girls are discriminated against/oppressed on the basis of their sex. You can't identify into that.

I think you are right, but you ignore that trans people also face discrimination and oppression. It seems to me that the answer is to end discrimination and oppression, not maintain some sort of purity test to determine which oppressed group you can associate with.

Moreover, I think this current gender ideology is a social contagion and is going to mess up quite a few kids lives (see posts above)

Well, sure. I agree.

But I also think that the attitudes towards trans or gender-nonconformity has also messed up quite a few kids lives, has for a very long time, and probably will in the future. Neither side gets prizes for looking out for the children.

There's a balance in there somewhere. You neither want to push an unwarranted transition nor push into an ill-fitted conformity. Unfortunately, psychology is hard. There is no bleed test for conditions that would be treated by transition.

Yet. There are genetic tests that are used to determine which anti-depressants would be most effective. Perhaps tests will be available for other psychological conditions that have roots in biology.

The science isn't as settled as either side likes to pretend.

 

[Meadmaker]

And this argument infuriates me. Contact sports played below elite level are seeing natal women injured by untransitioned, male bodied transwomen. I care greatly about that.

It's kind of mind boggling.

On some of these issues, I think there are grey areas and room for disagreement. When it comes to untransitioned males in female sports, I don't think there is any room for disagreement at all. When it comes to contact sports, it's downright disturbing.

 

[theprestige]

Apparently, you do not comprehend.

I'm not talking about the terms for sex (male and female). I'm talking about the terms for gender in the context of these discussions. Posting definitions of sex is a side argument of limited significance. For the most part, in my reading, the transgender voices consider sex and gender to be different things and recognize the differences between the sexes. Even the "is sex binary or a spectrum" arguments are side conversations that really have little to do with the main topic, which is gender.

The main topic is access and acceptance. The claim is that self-identifying as a specific gender entitles one to the desired access and acceptance. The obvious question is, what is it about gender identity that makes the claim of entitlement true? At which point the claim collapses into a miserable pile of logical fallacies and not answering the question.

<long form example of the above dynamic snipped because it is long>

 

[Emily's Cat]

But if I were to make an argument that relates even somewhat along those lines, I would ask instead: What makes you think anyone owns language? what makes you think there is an authority...any authority that gets to decide what a word means, how it changes, or that gets to veto when it changes? That's not how it works.

Language, words and meanings change. Resisting a particular change in meaning is fine: make a case that it should not change and suggest alternate terminology. It will be adopted or it won't, but no one has veto power over those changes.

...

But as far as women objecting to the changing definition of woman, more power to them. I support them making their objections. But ultimately, the definition will change or not. No one has the authority to change the definition, but neither does anyone have the authority to veto a change in definition. Language evolves. Time will tell where it goes.

Would you use this argument toward, for example, black people who are resisting the term "black" being adopted to refer to white people who like hip-hop music? Or who object to being relabeled as "high melanin havers" in advertising and literature, as they view this as dehumanizing?

In the meantime, there are issues that need to be discussed that are more important than terminology. If both sides waste their time objecting to the terminology of the other, then those things don't really get talked about. There are two definitions in play. Each side knows what the other means. The terminology discussion can be sidelined so that the more significant things...how does a person in a given circumstance get to live their life and how does that affect other people?

I disagree. For one thing, I don't think there's clarity around what each side means by "woman". Sometimes there's not even clarity around what each side means by "female". Wait, let me back-track this and be more blunt: one side is incredibly clear about what they mean by the terms "woman" and "female"; the other sided is extremely unclear and frequently refuses to even present their meaning for consideration.

Even if we were to pretend that both sides know exactly what is meant, if we cannot discuss the terminology and decide on a common usage for discussion, we cannot communicate.

Furthermore, the discussion cannot be sidelined when the argument of one side is "transwomen are women" with no elaboration, and then they take that undefined meaning of "woman" and insist that by dint of being a woman, any transwoman is entitled to access to any female-only space, and failure to bend to this demand is evidence of bigotry and hatred.

The lack of definitional agreement is a fundamental problem in this discussion. The topic cannot even be reasonably discussed when we are using different meanings.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's an example of where the shifting sand of definitions becomes a serious problem.

The Canadian Bar Association is Lobbying that prisoners be placed according to their self-declared gender identity, without exception. It does this in the name of the human rights of transgender prisoners... with no care or consideration given to the human rights of female prisoners.

In our view, CD 100 is based on the incorrect assumption that people are fundamentally men or women (or intersex) based on biology at birth. We recommend that the policy be based on the assumption that people have the right to be placed in institutions that reflect their gender identity if that is their choice.

 

[Olmstead]

The Golden Globes, or the Oscars or whatever can set the rules for eligibility in a category however they want. I don't care. And I'm not going to get upset if an individual uses the wrong terminology.

This isn't strictly true. In fact, there is a bunch of stuff they can't do, like putting all black men in the female category and restricting the male category to white men.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This isn't strictly true. In fact, there is a bunch of stuff they can't do, like putting all black men in the female category and restricting the male category to white men.

Yes and that's the rule, not that "Well have separate black and white categories but everyone gets to pick which category they are in and that solves it *wipes hands*"

Again I get that everyone thinks a direct 1:1 comparison to racism works, and it does but not all the way.

 

[theprestige]

Again I get that everyone thinks a direct 1:1 comparison to racism works, and it does but not all the way.

You get nothing, John Snow.

Nobody except a minority of trans-rights activists in this thread think the comparison works. Everyone else rejects it.

 

[Elaedith]

You get nothing, John Snow.

Nobody except a minority of trans-rights activists in this thread think the comparison works. Everyone else rejects it.

We need to clarify what is meant by 'works' here. It doesn't work in the sense of being structurally analogous.

Arguably it does work by making people too scared to dissent for fear of being branded as being like a racist, and is therefore effective as a propaganda tactic. There was some activist playback I saw floating around not long ago advising activists to use this type of comparison.

It also works to make the person using the comparison feel morally superior and therefore qualified to 'educate', smear, and otherwise inflict 'consequences' on others, which is very appealing to some people.

In other words it exploits the human social tendency to be more motivated to conform to popular trends and display status rather than to be accurate.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Here's an example of where the shifting sand of definitions becomes a serious problem.

The Canadian Bar Association is Lobbying that prisoners be placed according to their self-declared gender identity, without exception. It does this in the name of the human rights of transgender prisoners... with no care or consideration given to the human rights of female prisoners.

Cool.

It's refreshing how the right wing anti-trans campaign has totally floundered in Canada. Peterson had his little meltdown and the TERFs got chucked off the government teet, but trans rights have steamed ahead undisturbed. Good for them.

 

[JihadJane]

Cool.

It's refreshing how the right wing anti-trans campaign has totally floundered in Canada. Peterson had his little meltdown and the TERFs got chucked off the government teet, but trans rights have steamed ahead undisturbed. Good for them.

Gross. Canada has abandoned women. Putting men in women's prison is insane.

 

[theprestige]

Gross. Canada has abandoned women. Putting men in women's prison is insane.

The current state of play includes three factions:

"This is bad." - People who want to discuss the issue.

"That's what a nazi would say." - People who absolutely do not want to discuss the issue, and are intentionally ambiguating the discussion at every opportunity.

"We can't discuss this until we agree on the terms to use." - People who don't understand what's actually going on here.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

The current state of play includes three factions:

"This is bad." - People who want to discuss the issue.

"That's what a nazi would say." - People who absolutely do not want to discuss the issue, and are intentionally ambiguating the discussion at every opportunity.

"We can't discuss this until we agree on the terms to use." - People who don't understand what's actually going on here.

Well, seems like the perfect opportunity for the self-ID doomsayers to test their theory. There's a whole country going off the deep end, if you believe their side of things. Surely it will be obvious soon, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Cool.

It's refreshing how the right wing anti-trans campaign has totally floundered in Canada. Peterson had his little meltdown and the TERFs got chucked off the government teet, but trans rights have steamed ahead undisturbed. Good for them.

And once more you reinforce that you think females are undeserving of basic human rights, dignity, and safety.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, seems like the perfect opportunity for the self-ID doomsayers to test their theory. There's a whole country going off the deep end, if you believe their side of things. Surely it will be obvious soon, right?

It already is obvious. It's just that whenever the cases of male prisoners who self-declare as "women" being placed in female prisons and proceeding to rape and assault the female prisoners... you handwave it away and dismiss it as "anecdote".

You keep pretending that nothing at all is going wrong, and you do that by willfully ignoring any evidence that counters your belief.... while simultaneously denigrating and insulting those who provide the information as well as the victims.