Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

Again playing word games rather than engaging in constructive discussion - I never said "only". I was asked for one and I gave one that matched up with my claim that trans-women are a subgroup of men.

And I said IF that's the only characteristic, then that resolves the debate, as far as I'm concerned. IF it's not the only characteristic you have in mind, feel free to present them any time.

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 11.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Glad to see you've dropped your strawman.

I never had a strawperson. Didn't have to drop anything.

We obviously disagree on what amounts to effort, if I am introduced to someone named " Delores" it takes no effort for me to refer to them as she or her than it would he or him. It would take me effort to go through "oh hang on Delores is a badly dressed man, he's one of these trans-women so I need to call them he and not she". I hold that the default of most people is to simply use whatever the other person wants, like we do with names and nicknames.

If you want me to go further and address something I didn't initially i.e. the use of "they" as a new(ish) pronoun to go alongside "he" and "she" then I would agree that takes more effort. I freely admit I have found it a tad awkward when it has come up in real life. But I can't see any reason why not to put in a bit of effort in to make someone feel welcome and included, I have to have a strong reason to make me want to be rude to someone. My adoption of "they" has been helped by fiction, I often discuss Dr Who with people and we can no longer refer to the Dr as "he" or "she" outside of specific incarnations so using "they" has been "forced " on me.

And of course the topic of this thread is he or she not they.

Tell me, Darat, in absolutely honesty... do you mentally conceive of Eddie Izzard as "she"? When you think about that person, do you internally, in your innermost brain, think of that person as female? Is your intuitive response to view Izzard as "her"?

There's some squish in there, and it depends entirely on exposure and how well a person passes. I know that Buck Angel is female, but they pass very well, and have done for so long, that my intuitive response is to conceptualize them as as "man". I know (and rather like personally) several transwomen who pass quite well, and who my intuitive response is to think of as "women". I also know several of each who really don't pass particularly well, even if I believe they personally have the very best of intentions. For those people, my instinctive response is to think of them by their actual sex, and it takes considerable effort on my part to remember to refer to them as if they were not their own actual sex. My nephew is one of those - I try very hard to use female pronouns for them, as do all of my family, but we still slip up quite regularly, because they do not pass as a "woman" very well, and they likely never will. And despite their request, I am not at all capable of thinking of my niece as a "man". They are 5'0", with DD breasts, a tiny waist and a big round butt, and every single thing about them screams female. I cannot force my brain to ignore that reality.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I don't understand this question,

Edited by zooterkin: 

<SNIP>
Edit for rule 11.

Thought is was quite clear but I'll reword it for you - "Are trans women a sub group of women or a subgroup of men?"

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope - it was lionking that was arguing against a shadow, or to put it as it is usually put here - he was attacking a strawman or strawwomen of his own devising. He just couldn't get past his preconception of my stance.

I know your dander is up

But... perhaps read my post a second time?

Are you proposing that you did NOT refer to transwomen as being a subset of men?

Are you proposing that you and lionking are arguing opposing views on that point?

Or... and hear me out... are you and lionking (and most of us, really) so tender when it comes to this topic that you (both of you, as well as most of us) sometimes get pre-emptively defensive instead of stepping back and trying to glean the intent of a post?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Thought is was quite clear but I'll reword it for you - "Are trans women a sub group of women or a subgroup of men?"

They are a subgroup of males, hence men.

 

[Darat]

It was MY exchange! There is no strawman involved in reading what you actually wrote, in context of the question you were asked.


..snip...

Nope it arose in an exchange with Brainster and myself and my wording was "...No that's a different question to what I asked - I was asking about trans-women, which even if you want to describe them as men are a distinct sub-grouping of men.
..."

That was followed on by an exchange with lionking - then you jumped in to ask me about my statement that trans women are a distinct sub-grouping of men.

I have had a thought and it may be that it is myself that has wrongly assumed that you don't think trans women are a subgroup of men, that you think trans women are a subgroup of women?

If so I apologise as I would have sworn that you didn't consider trans women as a sub group of women.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nope it arose in an exchange with Brainster and myself and my wording was "...No that's a different question to what I asked - I was asking about trans-women, which even if you want to describe them as men are a distinct sub-grouping of men.
..."

That was followed on by an exchange with lionking - then you jumped in to ask me about my statement that trans women are a distinct sub-grouping of men.

I have had a thought and it may be that it is myself that has wrongly assumed that you don't think trans women are a subgroup of men, that you think trans women are a subgroup of women?

If so I apologise as I would have sworn that you didn't consider trans women as a sub group of women.

I do NOT view them as a subgroup of women.

And what I asked you about, wasn't about whether or not they're a group of men, but rather what makes them distinct. More specifically, what objective characteristic makes them distinct. That led to an entirely different sub-derail within the semantic quibbling match we're currently engaged in.

 

[theprestige]

Thought is was quite clear but I'll reword it for you - "Are trans women a sub group of women or a subgroup of men?"

My opinion? They're a subgroup of men.

Do you have any objective criteria that sets them apart from other men, besides their claim to be set apart from other men?

 

[jimbob]

this thread has turned into a binfire and is now on moderated status until it calms down

there will be some tidying up when we get round to it

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jimbob

 

[Darat]

I never had a strawperson. Didn't have to drop anything.

Yes you did you argued against me saying "they" took no effort when I said using "he" or "she" took no effort. It's pretty much a textbook example of a strawman in action.

Tell me, Darat, in absolutely honesty... do you mentally conceive of Eddie Izzard as "she"? When you think about that person, do you internally, in your innermost brain, think of that person as female? Is your intuitive response to view Izzard as "her"?

Eddie Izzard is only a few years older than me so I've been aware of her since she started her comedy act (never been a particular favourite comedian of mine so not followed their career that much) but until their recent statements I would have used "he" as that was what I've always known her as. Now I understand she wants people to use "she" and "her" so I'm happy to accommodate that - it costs none of us anything to be polite to her. I honestly have no "innermost brain*" that tells me anything different. I actually don't think using famous or infamous people as examples are the way to go as we don't know these people, all we have is PR bumf and our own projections.

There's some squish in there, and it depends entirely on exposure and how well a person passes. I know that Buck Angel is female, but they pass very well, and have done for so long, that my intuitive response is to conceptualize them as as "man". I know (and rather like personally) several transwomen who pass quite well, and who my intuitive response is to think of as "women". I also know several of each who really don't pass particularly well, even if I believe they personally have the very best of intentions. For those people, my instinctive response is to think of them by their actual sex, and it takes considerable effort on my part to remember to refer to them as if they were not their own actual sex. My nephew is one of those - I try very hard to use female pronouns for them, as do all of my family, but we still slip up quite regularly, because they do not pass as a "woman" very well, and they likely never will. And despite their request, I am not at all capable of thinking of my niece as a "man". They are 5'0", with DD breasts, a tiny waist and a big round butt, and every single thing about them screams female. I cannot force my brain to ignore that reality.

I can understand it could be hard and take some effort if someone you know closely and have known for all your life as one set of pronouns asks you to switch them for a little while until new habits are embedded. But why would you not want to accommodate them, it causes no harm to you or others.

But if I'm meeting someone for the first time I have no habit to break so I would call Delores "she" or ms" if that is how she is either introduced to me or introduces themself even if they have a better beard than me and a voice 2 octaves lower, it's simply no skin off my nose.

 

[Darat]

I do NOT view them as a subgroup of women.

And what I asked you about, wasn't about whether or not they're a group of men, but rather what makes them distinct. More specifically, what objective characteristic makes them distinct. That led to an entirely different sub-derail within the semantic quibbling match we're currently engaged in.

One objective criteria that make them a distinct subgroup of men is that when asked "Are you a trans women" they answer "yes".

 

[Rolfe]

One objective criteria that make them a distinct subgroup of men is that when asked "Are you a trans women" they answer "yes".

One CRITERION (sing.) is that they give a particular answer to a question but you have no objective way of verifying this answer. Any man can say it if he wants to and there's nothing else about these men that would allow you, say, to predict how they were going to answer?

OK, but I'm still extremely hazy about why men prepared to answer that question with "yes" should be granted any particular privileges not available to other men.

 

[Lplus]

One objective criteria that make them a distinct subgroup of men is that when asked "Are you a trans women" they answer "yes".

Only if they can prove it by means of an official assessment, otherwise the statement relies on their own assessment of themselves and is thus not objective.

Objective criteria are factual pieces of information, independent of the parties in the negotiation, that are relevant to what should or should not be agreed to in that negotiation.

In this case the "negotiation" is your question and their answer.

 

[Rolfe]

I know that Buck Angel is female, but they pass very well, and have done for so long, that my intuitive response is to conceptualize them as as "man".

I thought of Buck Angel as "he" at first, but having seen pictures of her in the very early stages of transition (looking like a woman) and read a fair bit of what she has written about all this, I find I am seeing a woman more and more. Interestingly, she has no pronouns in her twitter bio.

I have a friend who transitioned nearly 30 years ago. He had a gender-neutral name in the first place and didn't change it. I saw him in women's clothes on a number of occasions (dress-up) before he hit me with the "I'm transitioning" news in a late-night phone call.

Of course I did the whole "of course you must do what makes you happy, I hope it all works out for you" thing, and I have actually spent a significant amount of time (back then) stroking his ego about how feminine he was looking, how well the hormones were working and so on. Yes I was mostly lying, but I wanted to make him feel good about himself.

I have never been able to think of him as anything but "he". Now I understand why, I've stopped worrying about it. But it's not something that ever comes up, because when I'm talking to him I call him "you".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes you did you argued against me saying "they" took no effort when I said using "he" or "she" took no effort. It's pretty much a textbook example of a strawman in action.

Using the same term for everyone with no disambiguation should hypothetically be easier than switching differentiated terms around to refer to the wrong sexes. That was why I mentioned that it still takes conscious effort on my part, and that's only bothering to make everyone the same all the time.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I thought of Buck Angel as "he" at first, but having seen pictures of her in the very early stages of transition (looking like a woman) and read a fair bit of what she has written about all this, I find I am seeing a woman more and more. Interestingly, she has no pronouns in her twitter bio.

I rather like the recent update to handle to "Buck Angel: Man with a female past" or something substantially similar.

 

[Matthew Best]

Sarcasm of course - read back through the exchange. It was all sarcasm.

That’s what he said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smartcooky]

One objective criteria that make them a distinct subgroup of men is that when asked "Are you a trans women" they answer "yes".

I am sure that does not answer the question Emily's Cat is asking.

If you ask me if I identify as a policeman, and I answer "yes", does that make me part of a subgroup of policemen merely because I say so? Of course it doesn't!

What Emily's Cat is asking is what objective observation can you make about a trans-woman makes them a subgroup of a larger group. For example what objective observation about a policeman makes them part of the larger group "law enforcement people"?

 

[d4m10n]

If you ask me if I identify as a policeman, and I answer "yes", does that make me part of a subgroup of policemen merely because I say so? Of course it doesn't!

There are a few groups where self-identity is all that we care about, e.g. fandoms, skepticism, atheism.

 

[Darat]

I am sure that does not answer the question Emily's Cat is asking.

If you ask me if I identify as a policeman, and I answer "yes", does that make me part of a subgroup of policemen merely because I say so? Of course it doesn't!

What Emily's Cat is asking is what objective observation can you make about a trans-woman makes them a subgroup of a larger group. For example what objective observation about a policeman makes them part of the larger group "law enforcement people"?

The objective observation is that there are men that when asked "are you a trans women?" answer yes. That group of men are a distinct sub-group of men.

There are only two reasons that the phrase can be objected to 1) if you think trans women are a sub-group of women or 2) think there are no men who when asked are you a trans women would answer yes.

We have had people argue for 1) but I've never seen anyone argue against 2). So far at least.

I think the issue some people are having with this phrase is that they are loading it with a whole load of baggage about other things. As if they think it is conceding something or it is some sort of trap to wedge something in, when it is merely an objective fact, indeed you don't need objective in that at all, it is simply a fact.