Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Emily's Cat]

Here we go again. "Just checking" that your position is what you have always declared it to be, but subtly recast to sound a bit intolerant.

Because that's appalling. No decent human being could possibly believe that, and this is so obvious I don't of course have to explain why. Are you really going to admit you're such a disgusting person?

This is not an argument. We've been round it all before, several times, and the loop isn't even all that long. You don't have any definition of "valid" in this context.

So let's try again. Someone who believes that they're something they aren't does not magically become that something, whether it's Napoleon, or an attack helicopter, or the Queen of Sheba, or the opposite sex. The belief may be sincere, and in that sense you might describe it as valid, but there is no realty to it.

That doesn't mean we can't be kind to people suffering from such conditions, and make reasonable provisions to make them feel comfortable. But they have no RIGHT to such provisions, and especially not if they're demanding provisions that impinge on the rights of other people.

So no, they don't get to be placed in prison cells with vulnerable women, or to compete in women's athletics events, or to claim awards and scholarships set aside for women, or to wash the genitals of an unconsenting disabled woman.

They are not women, so if that's what you mean by "valid", then no, they're not valid. Give it up already, because we're not going to change our minds on that.

There is a mindset here that consistently places the wants of men, often aggressive and fetishistic men playing the part of the oppressed snowflake, above everything, and women's comfort, safety and modesty nowhere. Own it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This thread has made me less tolerant of transgender people than when I began. It's made me almost completely intolerant of trans allies.

 

[shuttlt]

This thread has made me less tolerant of transgender people than when I began. It's made me almost completely intolerant of trans allies.

 

[shuttlt]

Our perspectives are so different that, as we see above, there's a whole lot to work through (and I basically started it this time by making so many replies to your one post). There would be a lot to learn for both of us to really dig into it, but, like before, it's just too much.

I think I have a much easier time here, because I started out with normal liberal politics and it is kind of the water we all swim in. It's taken me a couple of years of reading outside that canon, or even within it and just reading about intellectual and social history, to get me to where I am now. I do understand it's jarring. We are coming at one another with a different set of assumed goods, assumed truths and even assumed history.

I'll reduce my reply to this: you conclude that self-determination has no part of a functioning society.

That isn't what I meant to say. More that it isn't some kind of foundational, axiomatic good that you can build everything on. This is a rationalist conception where you determine what the features of a good society should be. Deductive reasoning. I think you haven't really fleshed out what you mean by self determination or why you think it is good. There are many senses in which it is popularly used that I would say are illusory.

That might be true, but I don't know how you can assert that with any degree of surety.

This is a big digression and a huge topic. A lot has been written on it. Having said that, if you doubt I can be sure that it won't work with any surety, but you acknowledge I might be right.... isn't that a bit of a problem if one were going to remake society on this principle?

It's not like history and politics is a science, there's no formula.

No indeed, but history is also the only evidence we have for what actually works in practice, and how ideas play out at scale and over long periods of time.

Now, if you're saying that we *should* not have a society that includes self-determination, you could assert that fully without that lack of surety.

I'm against picking out some absolute abstract good and thinking that because it feels positive on an individual level, that goodness will scale and it can be an organising principle for society.

You'd be stating an ought, but my issue is that stating an "is" in this case comes with a pretty wide margin of error.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't intend to say that it is absolutely impossible to build a society on a principle like this. Getting a square peg into a round hole is after all possible given enough force. History and the philosophy I've read makes me doubtful that doing so is a good idea, but you haven't really fleshed out what you mean by self determination. It's more that thinking of nice principles that seem good at an individual level is not the difficult part of building a good society. The difficult part is how things play out with real people involved and the requirements of this society to stably maintain itself.

 

[Paul2]

That isn't what I meant to say. More that it isn't some kind of foundational, axiomatic good that you can build everything on.

I can get on board with that mostly, the devil will be in the details, but I'd rather focus on what we can agree on right now.

This is a rationalist conception where you determine what the features of a good society should be. Deductive reasoning.

I think you haven't really fleshed out what you mean by self determination or why you think it is good. There are many senses in which it is popularly used that I would say are illusory.

I think I have more than a casual sense of what self-determination means, given my more-than-average reading on liberalism.

This is a big digression and a huge topic. A lot has been written on it. Having said that, if you doubt I can be sure that it won't work with any surety, but you acknowledge I might be right.... isn't that a bit of a problem if one were going to remake society on this principle?


No indeed, but history is also the only evidence we have for what actually works in practice, and how ideas play out at scale and over long periods of time.


I'm against picking out some absolute abstract good and thinking that because it feels positive on an individual level, that goodness will scale and it can be an organising principle for society.


I think you misunderstand me. I don't intend to say that it is absolutely impossible to build a society on a principle like this. Getting a square peg into a round hole is after all possible given enough force. History and the philosophy I've read makes me doubtful that doing so is a good idea, but you haven't really fleshed out what you mean by self determination. It's more that thinking of nice principles that seem good at an individual level is not the difficult part of building a good society. The difficult part is how things play out with real people involved and the requirements of this society to stably maintain itself.

As above, I'm not advocating that self-determination is the centerpiece of a society. You are taking what I say far beyond what is required, necessary, and beyond the context I said them in. For a reminder, I merely and only said

there *is* an articulable form of feminism that can engage with trans rights without necessarily oppressing nor being oppressed.

To clarify, I mean that it's not necessary to get into the oppressed eventually oppressing others for self-determination to be contained within in a form of feminism and trans rights.

 

[shuttlt]

To clarify, I mean that it's not necessary to get into the oppressed eventually oppressing others for self-determination to be contained within in a form of feminism and trans rights.

I don't think I am up for speculating about what forms of feminism or trans rights activism might be possible. A trans rights movement founded on entirely different principles would be entirely different. I'm talking about the dominant forms that hold power in HR departments and are educating my children.

 

[Aber]

I don't intend to say that it is absolutely impossible to build a society on a principle like this. Getting a square peg into a round hole is after all possible given enough force. History and the philosophy I've read makes me doubtful that doing so is a good idea

Would wars of religion be a good analogy for where self-identification could lead to at a societal level?

 

[shuttlt]

Would wars of religion be a good analogy for where self-identification could lead to at a societal level?

Now we are way off in the long grass. Not 100% sure what you are asking, but I'll give it a go.

If we are in an everybody can be what ever they want to be mode, then the temptation is to compare it to the aspects of the reformation that were about everybody interpreting the Bible for themselves. I think though that the key difference is that there you generally have an assumption that there is an objectively correct reading, and people who read it differently are wrong. I'm not that knowledgeable on religious history, so I could be off on that.

What we see at the moment seems fundamentally entropic to me. Society can't actually run on utopian dreams of everybody living like 18th century libertine aristocrats where every fetish is "normal". Things like that have been tried to some extent after the English Civil War, after the French Revolution, after the Russian Revolution, and in Weimar to name the most obvious examples. Often what happens is the emergence of some authoritarian strong man, but for that to happen you need a situation where the military brass are concerned the country is going to fall over or some similar source of power for the strong man to rise from. I don't see any chance of that happening in the immediate future.

To your original statement about wars of religion. If we don't imagine armies engaging one another and actual real wars, then sure.... what is going on is a religious in nature. Two conceptions of man. Two conceptions of the good. Two conceptions of the nature of the world. Each utterly incompatible with the other.

 

[Aber]

To your original statement about wars of religion. If we don't imagine armies engaging one another and actual real wars, then sure.... what is going on is a religious in nature. Two conceptions of man. Two conceptions of the good. Two conceptions of the nature of the world. Each utterly incompatible with the other.

Agreed; apologies for the derail, but I appreciate your contribution to the thread about why the argument is happening.

 

[theprestige]

Would wars of religion be a good analogy for where self-identification could lead to at a societal level?

Why do we need an analogy? We already know where self-identification is leading to at a societal level. Specifically, we can see people self-identifying as transgender, and thereby claiming certain privileges to the detriment of those around them.

Now, maybe transgender privilege is a good and necessary thing, and the detriments to others are a reasonable trade-off. But even if we agree that's true, there are still valid concerns about self-identification as the criteria for granting transgender privilege.

Bringing it back around to the topic of the thread: I apologize if you've already made your views clear, but I'd like to know if you think transwomen are women. If so, in what sense? What "privileges" do you believe should be granted to transwomen (preferred pronouns, access to sex-segregated spaces for women, counting as women for representation in commerce and government, etc.)? Do you believe that self-identification should be sufficient to claim entitlement to some or all of those privileges?

 

[Paul2]

I don't think I am up for speculating about what forms of feminism or trans rights activism might be possible. A trans rights movement founded on entirely different principles would be entirely different. I'm talking about the dominant forms that hold power in HR departments and are educating my children.

All I was trying to do was to figure out what would make sense, for both sides.

 

[TomB]

Let me be even more clear, so maybe you'll stop acting like you've achieved some kind of gotcha.

I 100% categorically deny that a person with a gender identity disorder is literally the opposite sex.

A transman is figuratively a man, but they are literally a woman.


Now that we've got that settled... any chance in hell that you might actually answer some of the direct questions that I've asked you?

Good luck with that.

 

[theprestige]

All I was trying to do was to figure out what would make sense, for both sides.

This would be a very different conversation if trans-rights activists were interested in making sense.

 

[shuttlt]

All I was trying to do was to figure out what would make sense, for both sides.

I think the trans activists want to win and get their way. I don't think they are looking for reasonable middle ground between them and the TERFS. I don't think they think they need to find a reasonable middle ground because they believe they will win. If they were unable to get their way and were forced to accept some halfway position, would they just accept that as the end of the war, or would that become the new status quo that they would start pushing from? If may be the TERFS appear somewhat willing to compromise, I suggest that is because they are weak and concerned about total defeat.

These battles are always asymmetric. For one side, victory is the maintenance of the status quo. For the other anything other than total defeat means the establishment of a new status quo in the direction they want to go in. One side will be on the right side of history, and the other side will be remembered 100 years from now as conservatives who opposed progress.

Which liberation struggle has been resolved by finding a halfway position for both sides that was anything other than tactical island hopping towards the goal of one side? Civil Rights? Gay marriage? One side will gain ground by this process, the other will lose ground. The side that loses ground had better get serious or they are going to get wiped out.

 

[TomB]

This thread has made me less tolerant of transgender people than when I began. It's made me almost completely intolerant of trans allies.

That's too bad. Because I don't think it's clear that the majority of the trans community are represented in this discussion.

Debates such as this attract the most...looking for the right word...I don't think "radical" is quite it... stridently ideological viewpoints. And then they get pushed to the extremes.

Most people, I think, trans or not, recognize that there is a real world to deal with and that ideological purity cannot exist in the real world. Everything we do is a compromise. And that's OK. It's the only way large numbers of people can live together in the same society.

That's a long way of saying that I've read (or watched videos of) a significant number of trans people who recognize and understand your concerns. I'm not convinced that your opponents in this topic are trans people as a group.

 

[shuttlt]

That's too bad. Because I don't think it's clear that the majority of the trans community are represented in this discussion.

Debates such as this attract the most...looking for the right word...I don't think "radical" is quite it... stridently ideological viewpoints. And then they get pushed to the extremes.

Most people, I think, trans or not, recognize that there is a real world to deal with and that ideological purity cannot exist in the real world. Everything we do is a compromise. And that's OK. It's the only way large numbers of people can live together in the same society.

That's a long way of saying that I've read (or watched videos of) a significant number of trans people who recognize and understand your concerns. I'm not convinced that your opponents in this topic are trans people as a group.

Political change is always driven by an organised minority. Did the Bolsheviks represent most Russians at the time of the revolution? No! They were a tiny fraction of a fraction of a percent. Most trans people may well just want to be left alone and not pick any fights with women or make anybody feel uncomfortable and Emily's Cat and Rolfe could have a lovely conversation with them. Politically, the opinions of such trans people do not matter any more than the opinions of the millions of Russian peasants mattered.

Unless politicians, the media, and networks of charities, lobbying groups and so on start treating people like Blair White, and Buck Angel as representatives of the trans community, then politically the trans community are the trans activists the TERFS are in a war with. That doesn't look very likely to happen.

 

[Aber]

Do you believe that self-identification should be sufficient to claim entitlement

No.

I also suspect that the rise of non-binary identification will reinforce the importance of sex rather than gender.

 

[Paul2]

This would be a very different conversation if trans-rights activists were interested in making sense.

Agreed. There is still value in making as much sense as you can and giving others the chance to find it, if they can, even if it is only like water dripping on a stone, while at the same time not acceding to their nonsense.

 

[Paul2]

I think the trans activists want to win and get their way. I don't think they are looking for reasonable middle ground between them and the TERFS. I don't think they think they need to find a reasonable middle ground because they believe they will win. If they were unable to get their way and were forced to accept some halfway position, would they just accept that as the end of the war, or would that become the new status quo that they would start pushing from? If may be the TERFS appear somewhat willing to compromise, I suggest that is because they are weak and concerned about total defeat.

These battles are always asymmetric. For one side, victory is the maintenance of the status quo. For the other anything other than total defeat means the establishment of a new status quo in the direction they want to go in. One side will be on the right side of history, and the other side will be remembered 100 years from now as conservatives who opposed progress.

Which liberation struggle has been resolved by finding a halfway position for both sides that was anything other than tactical island hopping towards the goal of one side? Civil Rights? Gay marriage? One side will gain ground by this process, the other will lose ground. The side that loses ground had better get serious or they are going to get wiped out.

We are talking past each other, and the time has come for me to end at least the substantive part of this conversation.

 

[shuttlt]

Agreed. There is still value in making as much sense as you can and giving others the chance to find it, if they can, even if it is only like water dripping on a stone, while at the same time not acceding to their nonsense.

I sympathise with your approach. I think though that in trying to hold these positions you are more like the rock hoping to win out against the water. From where I'm sitting there seems to be quite a torrent and boulders look to be being washed away.

Can you name a liberation movement that has been turned back by your approach? The only one I can think of is attempts to normalise paedophilia back in the 70s. Even then, I'm not sure it was a drip drip of reasonableness that turned them back, so much as the encountered overwhelming resistance and were defeated.