Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[lomiller]

I tried to correct myself in later posts but thank you for the added insight.

ETA: Of course, this (the highlighted section) doesn't seem to apply in professional sports, like basketball, football, or soccer... or maybe it does?

BTW, I've brought this subject up in another thread on baseball, but everyone seems to agree with your second paragraph.

Weight classes apply in most combat sports professional or otherwise, the only exception I can think of is "professional wrestling" which is more art and storytelling that sport.

For all but a handful of sports the highest level of competition is the Olympics or the sports armature world championship and if a professional version of the sport even exists it's not all that significant.

 

[AmyStrange]

That's ok when we are seeing the characters own thoughts or when the character is referring to themselves, but when it's other characters you should probably stick to the norms of the settings and possibly the knowledge level of the character speaking. In some settings it may even be possible to forgo gender specific pronouns altogether. Eg the equivalent of the he\she are not used much in Japanese. Even if the story is being told in English it may not be a bad thing to use use language in a way that is specific or unique to the setting, but that would be a stylistic choice and could fail spectacularly if not well executed.

I have a character in my novels that is gay. I introduced her in my first novel, but I don't even write that she is gay until my third book in the series, and I don't make a big deal about it or even state that she is gay.

I just introduced her life partner as a she who likes to dress up as Ricky Ricardo because she likes to do I Love Lucy skits with the narrator's gay friend.

I don't make a big deal about it, because my main character (who narrates the story) doesn't care one way or the other (I don't either), but I do get to have one of my other characters (the narrator's girlfriend) kill a transphobic ***hole (he's actually an anti-gay ****head) who tries to kill their gay friend in a bar fight.

It was quite satisfying actually.

BTW, is a woman who likes to dress up as a man transgender? I'm getting mixed signals about that.

ETA: I sometimes found myself referring to this person as "he" when I originally wrote the scenes. I also did the same thing for the cat, but of course, I fixed all that when I proofread the story.

 

[lomiller]

BTW, is a woman who likes to dress up as a man transgender? I'm getting mixed signals about that.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I'm of the opinion gender is a superfluous and self-referential concept to begin with. To me it seems to amount to little more that "Men dress\act like men, and that makes them men" while "women dress\act like women and that makes them women".

 

[AmyStrange]

BTW, is a woman who likes to dress up as a man transgender? I'm getting mixed signals about that.

I'm probably the wrong person to ask because I'm of the opinion gender is a superfluous and self-referential concept to begin with. To me it seems to amount to little more that "Men dress\act like men, and that makes them men" while "women dress\act like women and that makes them women".

Fair enough.

The way I see it is if a woman dresses up and pretends to be a man (especially a relatively famous one, like Ricky Ricardo from the "I Love Lucy" TV show) that would seem to make them transgender, but that's just me, and also why I'm asking what others think.

Of course, actors (and actresses) do that sort of thing also ("Tootsie" for example), but I don't think that makes them transgender, and maybe the same rule applies with my character.

Anyone else care to elaborate or just give their opinion?

BTW, the character's name in my book is also called Desi.

 

[lomiller]

The way I see it is if a woman dresses up and pretends to be a man (especially a relatively famous one, like Ricky Ricardo from the "I Love Lucy" TV show) that would seem to make them transgender, but that's just me, and also why I'm asking what others think.

IMO people dress to convey information abut themselves (or to tell people that information is none of their business). This is often about personality and where they fit into society but also frequently includes information about sexuality and sexual preference. Dressing up as Ricky Ricardo is definitely more on the flamboyant side but to me it seems more likely to be a vehicle for conveying sexuality and sexual preference than a reflection of someone who identifies as male.

 

[Elaedith]

Fair enough.

The way I see it is if a woman dresses up and pretends to be a man (especially a relatively famous one, like Ricky Ricardo from the "I Love Lucy" TV show) that would seem to make them transgender, but that's just me, and also why I'm asking what others think.

Of course, actors (and actresses) do that sort of thing also ("Tootsie" for example), but I don't think that makes them transgender, and maybe the same rule applies with my character.

Anyone else care to elaborate or just give their opinion?

BTW, the character's name in my book is also called Desi.

There is no coherent definition of 'being transgender'. To some believers in gender identity essentialism, we have an innate gender identity which may or may not match that 'assigned at birth of the basis of our sex'. The problem with this is that the only thing that can be 'assigned on the basis of our sex' is some type of social expectation (such as gender roles), and this cannot be an innate property of the person. Alternatively, gender is just a 'feeling of being a man, woman, or nonbinary' which can match expectations based on our sex (e.g. a male is expected to 'feel like' a boy/man) or not. According to this idea, being a man or woman is defined by feelings rather than by sex, and this usually goes along with demanding that self-identified gender must replace sex in all areas of law and policy.

According to some, a male who identifies as a man but like to wear dresses is a man based on identity, while a male who identifies as a woman is a woman regardless of what they wear. However, this is complicated by the fact that many leading lobby groups (such as Stonewall in the UK) include 'gender non-conforming' people and 'cross-dressers' under the 'trans umbrella'.

 

[theprestige]

Fair enough.

The way I see it is if a woman dresses up and pretends to be a man (especially a relatively famous one, like Ricky Ricardo from the "I Love Lucy" TV show) that would seem to make them transgender, but that's just me, and also why I'm asking what others think.

Of course, actors (and actresses) do that sort of thing also ("Tootsie" for example), but I don't think that makes them transgender, and maybe the same rule applies with my character.

Anyone else care to elaborate or just give their opinion?

BTW, the character's name in my book is also called Desi.

I would like you to elaborate on what it means to "dress up and pretend to be a man".

Also, why does cosplaying as a famous member of the opposite sex make you trans? Absent any other distinctions, why wouldn't that just be cosplay?

One of the recurring themes in this thread is the unanswered question of what it actually means to be transgender, and what one does to qualify for the term. This question is important, because it relates directly to the central questions of the thread:

- What rights should trans folks have as a result of being trans?

- What access and accommodations should trans folks have, as a matter of public policy?

And the big one, straight from the thread title.

- If transwomen really are women, what does that mean, and how does one achieve that state?

You're new to the thread, and I'd be interested in your relatively fresh perspective on these questions.

 

[AmyStrange]

There is no coherent definition of 'being transgender'. To some believers in gender identity essentialism, we have an innate gender identity which may or may not match that 'assigned at birth of the basis of our sex'. The problem with this is that the only thing that can be 'assigned on the basis of our sex' is some type of social expectation (such as gender roles), and this cannot be an innate property of the person. Alternatively, gender is just a 'feeling of being a man, woman, or nonbinary' which can match expectations based on our sex (e.g. a male is expected to 'feel like' a boy/man) or not. According to this idea, being a man or woman is defined by feelings rather than by sex, and this usually goes along with demanding that self-identified gender must replace sex in all areas of law and policy.

According to some, a male who identifies as a man but like so to wear dresses is a man based on identity, while a male who identifies as a woman is a woman regardless of what they wear. However, this is complicated by the fact that many leading lobby groups (such as Stonewall in the UK) include 'gender non-conforming' people and 'cross-dressers' under the 'trans umbrella'.

Ok, that makes sense, but does this "trans umbrella" include actors like Dustin Hoffman who played a cross-dresser?

Interestingly enough, Dustin Hoffman has his own ideas about that:

FROM: https://www.usmagazine.com/entertai...s-viral-it-was-never-a-comedy-for-me-2013117/

Dustin Hoffman Breaks Down Over Tootsie Role, Video Goes Viral: “It Was Never a Comedy For Me”
By Joyce Chen July 11, 2013

Dustin Hoffman's 1982 comedy Tootsie was no laughing matter for the veteran Hollywood actor. The 75-year-old actor opened up about cross-dressing as a woman for his lead role in the film during a 2012 interview that went viral this week, and in a moving clip, he fights back tears as he remembers the experience.

During the interview, Hoffman explains that Tootsie co-writer Murray Schisgal once asked him, "How would you be different if you had been born a woman?"

"Not, 'What does it feel like to be a woman, because all sexes have asked the question of what it would feel like to be the opposite sex,'" Hoffman clarifies. "But his question was different. If you were born a woman, how would you be different?"

The actor goes on to explain that in considering the role, he asked the studio to provide him with several make-up tests so that he could see whether or not he would be able to get into character and stroll through the streets of New York as a woman — not a cross-dressing man, but as a woman.

The first time Hoffman saw himself in the mirror in full makeup as his character Dorothy Michaels, he says, he was surprised...

(SNIP)

The YouTube video of his above-mentioned interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE

 

[AmyStrange]

I would like you to elaborate on what it means to "dress up and pretend to be a man".

Also, why does cosplaying as a famous member of the opposite sex make you trans? Absent any other distinctions, why wouldn't that just be cosplay?

One of the recurring themes in this thread is the unanswered question of what it actually means to be transgender, and what one does to qualify for the term. This question is important, because it relates directly to the central questions of the thread:

- What rights should trans folks have as a result of being trans?

- What access and accommodations should trans folks have, as a matter of public policy?

And the big one, straight from the thread title.

- If transwomen really are women, what does that mean, and how does one achieve that state?

You're new to the thread, and I'd be interested in your relatively fresh perspective on these questions.

Thank you for your thoughts, but as far as answering any of your questions, I really haven't thought about rights or accommodations, except as to how it would apply to me (and the characters in my books).

I will be honest and say that I have actually secretly wished I'd been born a woman because some things would be a whole lot easier to understand, like the age-old question as to whether women really enjoy sex with a man, or as much as a man does.

(ETA: this always reminds me of that episode in "Seinfeld" with Elaine, or that scene in "When Harry met Sally" with Sally)

Anyway, I don't want to go down that path because that is obviously something for another thread (and maybe against a rule in this forum), but I will try and answer your first two questions (my answer for your very first question comes in my next post) by saying that they should have the same rights and accommodations, excepting when it involves putting others in harm's way.

I hope this helps and makes sense.

 

[AmyStrange]

I would like you to elaborate on what it means to "dress up and pretend to be a man".

Also, why does cosplaying as a famous member of the opposite sex make you trans? Absent any other distinctions, why wouldn't that just be cosplay?

I think you are right about it being cosplay.

I forgot all about that aspect of it.

I think maybe Dustin Hoffman answers that question better than I ever could:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPAat-T1uhE

 

[AmyStrange]

I would like you to elaborate on what it means to "dress up and pretend to be a man".

That actually brings up another question. How does a writer write (or create) a women character without actually trying to think like one or putting themselves in a woman's shoes.

ETA: This also applies to women writers. What I've seen mostly is they both seem to write along the typical (acceptable) stereotypical lines of the way they think a male or female would act--not always, but more so than not.

Both of my sisters tell me I did an excellent job in writing my character Beth (for my novels), but then again, they are my sisters, and I suspect they're just being nice.

 

[d4m10n]

Amazing

https://twitter.com/zeroanaphora/status/1492994929462853633

 

[mgidm86]

Amazing

https://twitter.com/zeroanaphora/status/1492994929462853633

Rant:

Sometimes I'm mildly concerned about this subject and other times, much of the time probably, I feel like I'm just not going to play along with these fantasies.

Yes, if you want to be called a woman I'm fine with that and I will do that politely (and I do), but shut the **** up about 25 different genders and some of the other nonsense I see here, like the URL quoted above. That kind of stuff pushes away many otherwise sympathetic people. Tell it to your therapist.

You wanna play women's basketball? Too ******* bad. You wanna use their restrooms - I dunno, ask women how they feel and let them decide, not me, because I am a man and should have no say in that (I feel).

It's like many other causes - the people who push it too far can turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be listening. I see a lot of what I consider extreme positions in the trans discussion and I'm just tired of the whole thing.

I care about people being treated fairly, but a lot of this is nonsense that I do not have the patience for.

I have read this thread for years and I think I'm a reasonable person, but I am still not convinced that I should care about 98% of these problems. After 8 very long thread splits - no, trans-women are not women.

You, whoever you are, are asking way too much of me. Small steps people, jesus ******* kripes already. And don't take it too personally, I'm tired of just about everybody these days.

 

[d4m10n]

It's like many other causes - the people who push it too far can turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be listening.

I think this is roughly the same perspective of the tweeter who posted that excerpt, an MtF individual with whom I used to podcast on a weekly basis.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rant:

Sometimes I'm mildly concerned about this subject and other times, much of the time probably, I feel like I'm just not going to play along with these fantasies.

Yes, if you want to be called a woman I'm fine with that and I will do that politely (and I do), but shut the **** up about 25 different genders and some of the other nonsense I see here, like the URL quoted above. That kind of stuff pushes away many otherwise sympathetic people. Tell it to your therapist.

You wanna play women's basketball? Too ******* bad. You wanna use their restrooms - I dunno, ask women how they feel and let them decide, not me, because I am a man and should have no say in that (I feel).

Hmmm. If they'd asked white people in the southern US in the 50s/60s whether or not they wanted black people to be allowed to sit next to them on the small bench seats in public busses..... most of them would probably have said no.

It's like many other causes - the people who push it too far can turn off a lot of people who would otherwise be listening. I see a lot of what I consider extreme positions in the trans discussion and I'm just tired of the whole thing.

There are extremists (on both sides) in almost every rights-related debate. It's idiotic to base one's own position by looking at the position of extremists on one side, concluding that one does not like the look of the extremists' position, and then using that as some sort of justification for remaining on the other side of the debate.

I care about people being treated fairly, but a lot of this is nonsense that I do not have the patience for.

Fortunately, medical science and your government has the patience for it, and I doubt whether they care if you do or not.

I have read this thread for years and I think I'm a reasonable person, but I am still not convinced that I should care about 98% of these problems. After 8 very long thread splits - no, trans-women are not women.

As I said earlier, people always tend to think they are "reasonable" - whether they actually are or not. Just like people always think they're above-average in driving skills. Just like many who opposed gay rights and black civil rights in the 60s/70s thought they were "reasonable".

And fortunately (again), medical science and your government understand and care about this issue properly - even if you don't - and they consider transwomen to be women.

You, whoever you are, are asking way too much of me. Small steps people, jesus ******* kripes already. And don't take it too personally, I'm tired of just about everybody these days.

Yes, that seems clear. And that's not really a good starting point to engage in debates, is it?

 

[LondonJohn]

What's embarrassing about that?

Really?

I'll explain, but I'm surprised that I have to:

Blair claims that "you can't use the term "pregnant women""

And that claim is both ignorant and incorrect. And embarrassing, given that Blair is a prominent public figure who ought to do his homework before making pronouncements such as this.

Because of course you can use the term "pregnant women".... to refer to women who are pregnant.

However, and here's the kicker:

Not all pregnant people are women.

(Do I have to explain why? Please let me know if I do....)

So if one is referring to everyone who is pregnant, then using the term "pregnant women" is non-inclusive and wrong. The correct term would be "pregnant people". But if one is addressing a room full of ciswomen who are pregnant (and yes, almost all pregnant people are ciswomen), then of course the use of the term "pregnant women" is correct and acceptable. And if an individual ciswoman is engaging with clinical staff, then of course she will be referred to as a "pregnant woman".


(What Blair is doing is akin to claiming "you can't use the term "blue chair"" - you can of course use that term to refer to blue chairs..... but not all blue things are chairs.)

 

[LondonJohn]

It's all part of LondonJohn's <snipped to exclude personal attack>

As for the content, I'm guessing that LondonJohn would say that this is in no way at all in any sense related to the controversy of Rowling making a reference to "people who menstruate" in a tweet. No, no. Blair is ignorant, because, I'm guessing, no one has ever proposed legislation making it a crime to say "pregnant women", therefore Blair is an ignorant fool, and so is anyone who can't see why he is an ignorant fool.

Ah, you really don't understand this issue properly, do you?

Read my post #616 if you like - it gives an explanation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Oh good lord.

There is none so blind as the one who will not see.

https://www.glsen.org/policy-maps'''


Check out the third section, "Enumerated Curricular Standards Legislation by State".

Yes, indeed, "both sides", really are trying to indoctrinate children, and are passing laws in state legislatures to force the issue onto local school boards who would prefer to do things a different way.



And then there are the folks who want to say that using "wrong" pronouns is a hate crime, but those aren't getting much traction in the US, because we take that "free speech" thing pretty seriously. Over in Loudoun County, Virginia, a teacher was booted for not going along, but he won his lawsuit and was reinstated.


I think most real people are on the "side" that doesn't want state boards of education messing with things like transgender issues for fifth graders, and would prefer that those issues be ignored most of the time, and dealt with by the local school if it can't be ignored, but there are people on the left and on the right that don't think that's good enough, so they pass laws.

I see. Yes, I suppose you could say that the left is equally extreme in their indoctrination if you consider "non-discrimination policies as required by federal law" as an equally extreme position in contrast to the anti-gay animus of the right.


You understand that this is no possible "agnostic" position to take here, right? Trans and gay students exist and will be entering the public school system. These schools either have to decide whether they're going to bury their heads in the sand on this issue and let the chips land where they may, or take a position that discrimination against these students, both by their peers and by the teachers and administration, will not be accepted.

What you call "indoctrination" is simply the routine process of teachers supervising children in their care.

 

[Aber]

Really?

(What Blair is doing is...)

Given that you've not read the interview, you don't know the context of the quote and yet are supremely confident about what Blair is doing.

 

[Ziggurat]

I see. Yes, I suppose you could say that the left is equally extreme in their indoctrination if you consider "non-discrimination policies as required by federal law" as an equally extreme position in contrast to the anti-gay animus of the right.

Do you not have anything better to offer than straw?

No, I suppose you don't. You really don't want to acknowledge the existence of the extreme left, which wants far more than "non-discrimination policies as required by federal law".

Trans and gay students exist and will be entering the public school system. These schools either have to decide whether they're going to bury their heads in the sand on this issue and let the chips land where they may, or take a position that discrimination against these students, both by their peers and by the teachers and administration, will not be accepted.

Who said anything about accepting discrimination? That isn't what this is about, at all.

What you call "indoctrination" is simply the routine process of teachers supervising children in their care.

No, it really isn't. You've got your head in the sand.