Trans women are not women (Part 8)

[Distracted1]

It's always possible to deceive people. It doesn't change reality.

Of course they're trying to trans her now. But nobody knows what she herself thought about it all, or whether she would have recognised the very concept of "gender identity". As far as can be ascertained she was a woman who passionately did not want to be confined to the life the society of her time enforced on women, and wanted to be a doctor. So she dressed up as a man, changed her name (from Miranda, I believe) to James, and enrolled in medical school.

People did remark on her small stature and high voice at the time, but she was quite belligerent about it all and they backed off. People see what they expect to see. I suspect the thought was, is he a eunuch or something, not, is this a woman?

And yet, unless I'm remembering the wrong case, at post-mortem it was discovered that she had given birth to a child.

Yet, if the definition for all those "fooled" people was "a man is who I think a man is", then they were not fooled at all. They were only fooled if one disregards the performance of "manhood" and relies only on the materialistic measure.

Jumping back to Shuttit's explanation of how he came to learn what a woman was (by observing his mother) one might wonder if he would still hold that his mother was a woman in some hypothetical situation wherein his Mother was born male and had himself surgically altered to perform the female role? (through adoption, of course)

Shuttit's disregard for the "material" evidence of gender in favor of a social definition is a TRA argument.

 

[Rolfe]

I think you're over-thinking this. I know the difference between cats and dogs even if I occasionally mistake a small dog for a cat.

Shuttit's point is that Barry was immediately recognised as being a woman when her deception was discovered. Nobody re-thought their concepts of man and woman to accommodate her suberfuge and somehow re-classify her as a man.

 

[Distracted1]

I think you're over-thinking this. I know the difference between cats and dogs even if I occasionally mistake a small dog for a cat.

Shuttit's point is that Barry was immediately recognised as being a woman when her deception was discovered. Nobody re-thought their concepts of man and woman to accommodate her suberfuge and somehow re-classify her as a man.

"materialistically"
Their performance of "cathood" and "doghood" are irrelevant to what they are.

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck- it is a duck?

 

[Rolfe]

And the performance of femininity and masculinity are irrelevant to the material reality of being a woman or a man. I'm sitting here in completely gender-neutral clothes and nobody (except the cat) is observing me. I am still a woman. I'd still be a woman if I put on a DJ and a black bow tie and took a girl to a dance, and I'd still be a woman if I put on a boiler-suit and started to do a full service on my tractor.

 

[Rolfe]

In other words, if it quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck- it is a duck?

Not necessarily. I think that's the point of that saying. Usually, 99% of the time, you can rely on your perceptions without having to delve deeper, and that's what we do and we don't apologise for it.

We still know that ocassionally there's a parrot in there.

 

[shuttlt]

Yet, if the definition for all those "fooled" people was "a man is who I think a man is", then they were not fooled at all. They were only fooled if one disregards the performance of "manhood" and relies only on the materialistic measure.

Jumping back to Shuttit's explanation of how he came to learn what a woman was (by observing his mother) one might wonder if he would still hold that his mother was a woman in some hypothetical situation wherein his Mother was born male and had himself surgically altered to perform the female role? (through adoption, of course)

Shuttit's disregard for the "material" evidence of gender in favor of a social definition is a TRA argument.

No. My conception of man and woman is rooted in biology and nature. Sure, I could have been raised by a gay couple, or a arans-women, or wolves. I suspect that would have an impact on how basic concepts in my brain formed. Having said that, we don't live in a culture where gay couples, trans-women, or wolves typically raise children and I'm not at all sure that it would be possible to make such a thing the norm without collapsing the culture.

The "normal" understanding of man and woman is normal precisely because it is normal for a man and a woman to raise a child, rather than gay couples, transsexuals or wolves. Unless we get to the point where it is the most common thing in the world for mothers to have penises, trans-women are never going to be considered women.

This is also where things start getting into dark territory. To get trans-women accepted, you really need to mess with the sexual and gender development of little children. This is partly why all this ideology is being pushed on little kids in school. This is partly why drag-story hour is being pushed. Though there may be other dark reasons for that last one as well.

 

[Distracted1]

Not necessarily. I think that's the point of that saying. Usually, 99% of the time, you can rely on your perceptions without having to delve deeper, and that's what we do and we don't apologise for it.

We still know that ocassionally there's a parrot in there.

It seems the parrots are the topic of discussion here though.
The parrots are what behoove us to consider a definition of what makes a man/woman, and they do exist.
Reliance on the social perceptions of "I know one when I see one" break down in these discussions because they are not materialistic. This demonstrates IMO that the materialistic definitions are the more reliable- and the performative ones irrelevant.

 

[shuttlt]

It seems the parrots are the topic of discussion here though.
The parrots are what behoove us to consider a definition of what makes a man/woman, and they do exist.
Reliance on the social perceptions of "I know one when I see one" break down in these discussions because they are not materialistic. This demonstrates IMO that the materialistic definitions are the more reliable- and the performative ones irrelevant.

Everybody knows who falls under the traditional definition of man and women though, just like nobody would struggle to identify a parrot as the odd one out in amongst a bunch of ducks. The demand for a definition is just a Machiavellian game. They are the one who frame the question, and determine whether the answer is satisfactory. Since all practical definitions are flawed in some way or other, any definition that doesn't answer their political agenda can be rejected. Playing this game is pointless.

 

[Distracted1]

No. My conception of man and woman is rooted in biology and nature. Sure, I could have been raised by a gay couple, or a arans-women, or wolves. I suspect that would have an impact on how basic concepts in my brain formed. Having said that, we don't live in a culture where gay couples, trans-women, or wolves typically raise children and I'm not at all sure that it would be possible to make such a thing the norm without collapsing the culture.

The "normal" understanding of man and woman is normal precisely because it is normal for a man and a woman to raise a child, rather than gay couples, transsexuals or wolves. Unless we get to the point where it is the most common thing in the world for mothers to have penises, trans-women are never going to be considered women.

This is also where things start getting into dark territory. To get trans-women accepted, you really need to mess with the sexual and gender development of little children. This is partly why all this ideology is being pushed on little kids in school. This is partly why drag-story hour is being pushed. Though there may be other dark reasons for that last one as well.

Although we seem to agree that trans-women are not women, I find your arguments based in the same "woman as performance" as a TRA's might be un compelling.

Children learning to accept that a man in a dress is as much a full member of society as one in a flight suit is not logically unsound. Only being taught that materialistic reality is negated by social performance confounds logic and critical thinking.

You seem to conflate teaching children that "a woman can be a fireman" with "anyone who becomes a fireman is now a man", as if they are both some kind of threat to a functioning society.

 

[theprestige]

You seem to conflate teaching children that "a woman can be a fireman" with "anyone who becomes a fireman is now a man", as if they are both some kind of threat to a functioning society.

I haven't been following the thread too close recently. Has anyone actually said anything about a threat to functioning society?

Historically it's pretty obvious that a patriarchal society can function just fine. Economies and populations can grow. Resources can be extracted. Armies can be raised, borders can be defended, and empires can be built. Monuments can be erected. Rule of law can be established. Justice and mercy can be dispensed. Peace can be had.

So this isn't really a question of having a functioning society. It's a question of relegating women to second-class citizenship in society. Of having them function as servitors rather than full partners.

 

[shuttlt]

I haven't been following the thread too close recently. Has anyone actually said anything about a threat to functioning society?

Historically it's pretty obvious that a patriarchal society can function just fine. Economies and populations can grow. Resources can be extracted. Armies can be raised, borders can be defended, and empires can be built. Monuments can be erected. Rule of law can be established. Justice and mercy can be dispensed. Peace can be had.

So this isn't really a question of having a functioning society. It's a question of relegating women to second-class citizenship in society. Of having them function as servitors rather than full partners.

I would say two things here. Your paragraph beginning "Historically" seems obvious and true to me.

The paragraph after it seems entirely subjective to me. Is that really what the past was, I can certainly see that perspective.... but there are others. I don't see though how you can ditch the idea of a functioning society unless the preferred society is also functional. Maybe trans-women are treated as second class women, but is a society that treats them simply as women functional?

 

[theprestige]

I would say two things here. Your paragraph beginning "Historically" seems obvious and true to me.

The paragraph after it seems entirely subjective to me. Is that really what the past was, I can certainly see that perspective.... but there are others. I don't see though how you can ditch the idea of a functioning society unless the preferred society is also functional. Maybe trans-women are treated as second class women, but is a society that treats them simply as women functional?

I don't see why not. Unless all the emancipated women decide they'd rather smash the society than live in a society where all the best women are men.

But I'm really not interested in these broader socio-philosophical debates about the nature of womanhood and functional society.

I'd much rather get back to the much narrower question of whether transwomen are women, and in what sense should public policy answer that question.

Specifically:

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of access to sex-segregated safe spaces for women? What should public policy say about this?

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of access to women's sports? What should public policy say about this?

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of measuring women's access to the levers of power and participation in our society (corporate board positions, elected office, high military or civil rank, etc.)? What should public policy say about this?

Closely related questions:

- How do those who say that transwomen are women for the above purposes define womanhood? Is there a scientific basis for that definition?

- How do those who say that transwomen are women for the above purposes think trans-identification should be established, for those purposes?

As far as I'm concerned, all the broader discussion is a red herring. I'd really prefer it found a thread of its own in R&P. The only people who should be raising those topics here are the trans-inclusionists, and then only for the clear and direct purpose of trying to answer the above questions. (The trans-exclusionists might have a similar interest in raising the broader topics, except that the trans-exclusionist answer to the above questions is already well-established.)

From my perspective, you and p0lka are just muddying the waters and distracting from the actual discussion of trans-identity and public policy.

 

[shuttlt]

Although we seem to agree that trans-women are not women, I find your arguments based in the same "woman as performance" as a TRA's might be un compelling.

Children learning to accept that a man in a dress is as much a full member of society as one in a flight suit is not logically unsound. Only being taught that materialistic reality is negated by social performance confounds logic and critical thinking.

You seem to conflate teaching children that "a woman can be a fireman" with "anyone who becomes a fireman is now a man", as if they are both some kind of threat to a functioning society.

This is simply not the case. You are reading all of this through a liberal-enlightenment lense. I'm not reasoning this up from axioms. That "a woman can be a fireman" is different from "anyone who becomes a fireman is now a man" is not because I have derived that they must logically be different, or because morally they should be different, or even that I think the world would be better if they were different. I think they are different because humans and human society has evolved to see them as different.

What you are doing is a pure enlightenment project of trying to derive things about the world from universal principles.

It's not "woman as performance"... it's woman as millions of years of biological evolution. The brain was evolved to have a concept of "woman". Society was evolved around brains that had a concept of "woman" and were in societies containing women. It's not socially defined.... it's defined by being a human, raised by humans in a human society.

 

[shuttlt]

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of access to sex-segregated safe spaces for women? What should public policy say about this?

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of access to women's sports? What should public policy say about this?

- Are transwomen women for the purpose of measuring women's access to the levers of power and participation in our society (corporate board positions, elected office, high military or civil rank, etc.)? What should public policy say about this?

The answer should be no across the board, I think. If there weren't trans activists and the nature of woman wasn't being fundamentally called into question, I wouldn't care. I really think that the state before was much more like a negotiated accommodation where women had the right to exclude a trans-woman if they were uncomfortable, but an accomodation was possible based on one off acts of understanding and kindness on a case by case basis. Now this feels like an existential attack on women, and as a man I think an existential attack on women is an existential attack on men.

- How do those who say that transwomen are women for the above purposes define womanhood? Is there a scientific basis for that definition?

They just want trans-women to count as women, they don't really care about definitions.

- How do those who say that transwomen are women for the above purposes think trans-identification should be established, for those purposes?

They don't care.... they just want trans-women to count as women.

From my perspective, you and p0lka are just muddying the waters and distracting from the actual discussion of trans-identity and public policy.

It's not a public policy conversation. It's like having a debate with the Bolsheviks about exactly how their needs should be accommodated by parliament. The discussion is going to be fake.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah we wear clothes. The point of contention was whether it was instinctive modesty that drove it, or basic utility, for example cover up the sensitive bits cos it hurts when you don't.

That would be why I said it was strongly suggestive.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, it shouldn't. But we've all seen it. Is there a formal name for this debating fallacy, where you announce that a word everyone has been entirely clear about for hundreds of years is suddenly going to be used in with a different definition, one which rather conveniently suits the position of the arguer?

I'd dub it the Humpty-Dumpty Fallacy.

 

[Emily's Cat]

"I know it when I see it" is fine in many cases- yet breaks down when challenged. The biological definition ("materialistic" definition, in Shuttits' vernacular) is therefore more reliable.
If I define "woman" as anyone who convinces me they are a woman through observation- I am likely to put some men into women's prisons.

Only in those cases where the person has undergone so much surgical alteration that they can successfully mimic the physical characteristics of a female human. I'm going to blithely assume that the possession of a penis and testicles does NOT successfully mimic a female, thus disqualifying that male person from being placed in the female estate.

In actual practice, even if I have a principled objection to that, I find it pragmatically acceptable. If a male person has undergone so much surgery and hormonal intervention - and has removed their genitals - then they win. I can work with the very, very few edge cases when they occur. That's entirely different from kowtowing to self declaration.

 

[Emily's Cat]

To be honest, I suspect the meaning of man and woman is hardwired deep in our brains, all wrapped up in social meanings we learn from having a mother and a father who also had it hardwired deep in their brains. Obviously that doesn't stop anybody from turning their back on it and pretending they don't have the slightest way to tell whether the large, muscular, bepenised individual is a man or a woman.

It *is* hardwired into our brains. And it's activated somewhere around the age of five or six, about the same cognitive period where children begin to empathize and conceptualize other people as distinctly separate from themselves. It's the age where children first begin to show that they can conceptualize another person's desires and wants from that person's point of view rather than from their own. It's where they begin demonstrating that even though they don't like red, they understand that Alex does like red, and they will select a red toy to give to Alex.

From that age on, humans are about 98% accurate in sexing post-pubescent humans by face alone. Accuracy increases a bit as the child ages, as well as with the age of the person they're sexing (to the late twenties where it stabilizes). Accuracy is better in females than in males.

My google fu is failing today, but this has been repeatedly tested and well documented for many decades now. And it's been known without rigorous testing for as long as humans have been around. We reproduce sexually - we need to know the sex of other mature members of our species in order to do that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yet, if the definition for all those "fooled" people was "a man is who I think a man is", then they were not fooled at all. They were only fooled if one disregards the performance of "manhood" and relies only on the materialistic measure.

A successful con-artist doesn't actually become the millionaire oil tycoon that they convinced you they were. A really skilled Elvis impersonator doesn't actually become the deceased Presley. A stick insect is not actually a stick - nor does it cause anyone at all to become confused about the core concepts of sticks and insects.

An observer being fooled by camouflage/mimicry/fraud doesn't change the nature of either the mimic or the original, nor does it alter the definition or understanding of either one.

 

[theprestige]

"I know it when I see it" is fine in many cases- yet breaks down when challenged. The biological definition ("materialistic" definition, in Shuttits' vernacular) is therefore more reliable.
If I define "woman" as anyone who convinces me they are a woman through observation- I am likely to put some men into women's prisons.

Only if you're very lazy, or very stupid.

Some men, who tend towards a more feminine phenotype, can, under favorable conditions, in times and places of their choosing, successfully pass as women to casual observers.

As a conscientious prison warden, conducting strip searches and medical reviews of incoming prisoners, under conditions highly unfavorable for passing, you would be carrying out a much more thorough observation. You would be highly unlikely to put some men into women's prisons. I concede that there might be some edge case, where a man of suitable phenotype enters your prison, having had extensive and high-quality surgery, including the removal and replacement of his visible genitalia, and somehow gets past your watchful eyes.

This is similar to the bedroom test. You're sexually attracted to a woman. You get to the bedroom, and discover they're actually a man, who was able to successfully pass as a woman in the club and in the back of the cab, but turns out to have Tab A where you were expecting Slot A. Are you still sexually attracted to him? Should you be?