Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Lplus]

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.

Very true Darat, the observation is that an answer to the affirmative was given; a simple fact. However the original phrase was objective criterion/ia which would be objective evidence that the answers were true. I do note that you were not the first to use the phrase objective observation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Or 3) It's such a useless observation that nobody can make heads or tails of why you felt it relevant to specify that.

Anyway... circling around to the highlighted: If this group of men who answered yes to a completely subjective question are a subgroup of men... how do we get them excluded from female single-sex spaces and go back to treating them in the same way we treat all other males?

 

[Darat]

Very true Darat, the observation is that an answer to the affirmative was given; a simple fact. However the original phrase was objective criterion/ia which would be objective evidence that the answers were true. I do note that you were not the first to use the phrase objective observation.

But my phrase was never about anything like that, it was simply stating what I thought would have been a rather uncontroversial fact for many in this thread i.e trans women are a distinct subset of men. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is beyond me why that phrase is apparently such a problem for some people.

 

[Rolfe]

I don't think it is a problem for anyone. Transwomen are a subgroup of men, whose only common distinguishing feature is that when asked "do you identify as a woman" will reply "yes".

 

[shuttlt]

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

I'm not sure that even that is true. I'll not touch the others for now, but you absolutely get debates about whether some casual fan who has only seen the reboot and has no interest in the law is actually a fan. Are you a Tolkien fan if you haven't read the books and you like back flipping elves, some will say yes, some will say no.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure that even that is true. I'll not touch the others for now, but you absolutely get debates about whether some casual fan who has only seen the reboot and has no interest in the law is actually a fan. Are you a Tolkien fan if you haven't read the books and you like back flipping elves, some will say yes, some will say no.

Trufan, neo, TAFF winner, COFF winner, media fan, it can be split up forever. But it's a fair point. If someone swans into the Worldcon without ever having read a single SF or fantasy book, without having watched a single SF or fantasy TV programme or film, and announces that they're an SF fan, does that make them one?

In this context it's not something that matters. If he shoots his mouth off in the con bar or the fan room and makes an arse of himself he might get a bit of pushback though. Would that be bigotry, or just a poseur getting what was coming to him? You decide.

I don't think even this is a simple matter of self-identification when you really examine it though.

 

[shuttlt]

I don't think it is a problem for anyone. Transwomen are a subgroup of men, whose only common distinguishing feature is that when asked "do you identify as a woman" will reply "yes".

Is that what a trans-woman is? If I answered "yes" to the question even though I do not feel like a woman, I do not believe I am a woman, and I do not have any desire to be a woman... I would none the less be a transwoman? Alternatively, if some closeted man with gender dysphoria felt they were a woman, believed they were a woman and wanted to be a woman, but answered "no" to the question, they would not be a trans-woman?

 

[d4m10n]

Are you a Tolkien fan if you haven't read the books and you like back flipping elves, some will say yes, some will say no.

I'm sure there will be people calling themselves Tolkien fans having seen only The Rings of Power.

As a self-identified Tolkien fan, all I can do is try to persuade them to find a comfortable nook and read the books.

 

[Rolfe]

Is that what a trans-woman is? If I answered "yes" to the question even though I do not feel like a woman, I do not believe I am a woman, and I do not have any desire to be a woman... I would none the less be a transwoman? Alternatively, if some closeted man with gender dysphoria felt they were a woman, believed they were a woman and wanted to be a woman, but answered "no" to the question, they would not be a trans-woman?

Ask Darat. It's his definition. I'm curious to see where he's going with it, so I'm acceding for the purpose of argument.

On one level it's a fair definition. The people we are being told are trans are the ones who say they are. No consideration of their motivation for saying that, and no consideration of imponderables such as people's innermost thoughts that are never voiced.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But my phrase was never about anything like that, it was simply stating what I thought would have been a rather uncontroversial fact for many in this thread i.e trans women are a distinct subset of men. Nothing more, nothing less.

It is beyond me why that phrase is apparently such a problem for some people.

I tried to say "ruffled feathers" yesterday, I don't think my intent came through.

This is a very sensitive subject for many of us... and unfortunately, things that some of us think are entirely uncontroversial have ended up being massively controversial. I think additionally, the way your initial post was phrased was a bit unintentionally confusing. It read similar to "If you're the kind of person who thinks transwomen are a subset of men"... Which is a style used by some posters in this thread as a way to needle other posters.

I think there was an assumption of a position you don't hold, based on a rough reading of a not-as-clear-as-intended post, and then everyone's hackles were up and everyone got defensive. It happens.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Trufan, neo, TAFF winner, COFF winner, media fan, it can be split up forever. But it's a fair point. If someone swans into the Worldcon without ever having read a single SF or fantasy book, without having watched a single SF or fantasy TV programme or film, and announces that they're an SF fan, does that make them one?

In this context it's not something that matters. If he shoots his mouth off in the con bar or the fan room and makes an arse of himself he might get a bit of pushback though. Would that be bigotry, or just a poseur getting what was coming to him? You decide.

I don't think even this is a simple matter of self-identification when you really examine it though.

Interesting parallel. There are a lot of loose groupings of people that allow an element of self-designation as members... but there's also a limit to how far that self-designation extends. I might casually say that I'm a sci-fi fan. I like reading science fiction, I like a lot of science fiction shows and movies. But at the end of the day, I usually refrain from referring to myself as a "fan", specifically because there's a huge amount of sci-fi I have no interest in, there are a ton of shows I haven't watched and will probably never watch, and I've never been to a convention of any sort. There's a level of personal investment that I simply don't have. And 90% of the time that's no big deal.

Most of the time, me saying I'm a sci-fi fan is sufficient to cover my general interest, and open the door to some discussion and casual conversation. But were I to actually go to a convention or any kind of sci-fi club... I would very likely not make the cut.

Because when it comes down to brass tacks, membership in a group isn't based on whether an individual wants to belong, no matter how strong their desire. It's based on acceptance by the pre-existing members of that group.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is that what a trans-woman is? If I answered "yes" to the question even though I do not feel like a woman, I do not believe I am a woman, and I do not have any desire to be a woman... I would none the less be a transwoman? Alternatively, if some closeted man with gender dysphoria felt they were a woman, believed they were a woman and wanted to be a woman, but answered "no" to the question, they would not be a trans-woman?

So far as an outside observe can determine... yep. That's all there is to it. All transwomen are men of one sort or another, and if they never tell anyone, nobody will ever pick them out of a line-up as anything other than a standard issue man.

 

[LondonJohn]

Good point.

People usually fail to realise the extent to which an extremely good performer can dominate a sport. Think about tennis. Nadal, Djokovic and the others (now that Federer has more or less retired). Sure, there are other men in with a shout, but they're scrappng around for penny-numbers of titles compared to what these two (three) have scooped up.

Now imagine there are just two "transwomen" in women's tennis (and I'm not talking Richards here, competing at an age when men have normally retired gracefully to the seniors, I'm talking people in their twenties). That's not many, is it? Surely we can be kind to them?

Serena Willliams couldn't beat a man ranked outside the top 200. We'd have a women's game dominated by a couple of males, in much the same way Nadal and Djokovic dominate the men's game, and the women scrapping around for a few titles here and there maybe on a day one of the males was injured or something.

And saying, well we won't let them enter the big tournaments, won't work. Girls need fair competition to rise through the levels of their sport. Not the hope that one day, if they work hard enough, they can come second or third often enough to qualify.

I think you're arguing something which, with near certainty (IMO), will simply not be an issue within a couple of years or so.

As I've said many times - and as is now clearly playing out in the real world - sports administration bodies can and will exclude transwomen from competing in the women's category at the elite and sub-elite level. But (and here is the critically important kicker) they will only make that determination following a proper investigation into the scale of the advantage gained by transwomen as it relates to their particular sport.

It's simply not credible or ethical - and it would potentially be unlawful in most relevant jurisdictions - if (say) the ITF (tennis world governing authority) were simply to issue an evidence-free ban on transwomen competing in the women's category. They will need to have proper studies that are tailored specifically for tennis, with expert opinion and as many case studies as possible. Only after that process has been carried out will they have the authority to ban transwomen. And that's exactly as it should be.

We're already seeing several sports governing bodies following exactly this procedure and acting on the evidence. I would be astonished if the governing bodies of all other major world sports are not currently undertaking the same studies.

 

[LondonJohn]

We seem to be back to the LondonJohn argument. How dare you point out that "transwomen" are a subset of men, that is a morally repugnant position and I'm surprised anyone would own up to it in public.

For crying out loud, this is a sceptics forum. We're supposed to be grounded in physical reality and debating from a logical standpoint. In actual physical reality transwomen are men and it is logical to consider them as such in discussions such as this.

Uh that's not my argument. You've created a strawman.

My argument is that transmen are men, and transwomen are women. I think that is the fair and appropriate position to take, especially now that the relevant experts mainstream medical/scientific community effectively endorse that view.

I think it's wrong and unfair to refer to transmen as women (and vice versa). I've never claimed that it's "morally repugnant" (or any words to that effect) or any of the other stuff in your strawman.


And regarding your second paragraph, did you know that (for example) that mainstream public - and medical - opinion up until around the 1950s was that homosexuality was immoral, repugnant, and (in many jurisdictions) illegal? I dare say that if ISF had been around at that time, there'd have been someone attempting to argue something along the same lines as that 2nd paragraph of yours.....

 

[LondonJohn]

The problem that has arisen (one I note LondonJohn fully supports) is that rather than say, we must have evidence that transwomen do not retain any male-puberty advantage before we open women's sports to them, which would of course be the logical position, sports authorities have been so brainwashed into the "be kind to this incredibly marginalised minority" mindset that they opened their doors immediately on request.

Then, to compound the issue, they attempted to silence anyone criticising this by threatening girls and women who complained with loss of team places and sponsorship, and they saying, look, the actual women athletes have no problem with it. You bigot.

We're now in the position that should have been the initial move - looking at the evidence to see if men retain the advantages of male puberty when they transition. Which of course they do, it's freaking obvious, you just have to look at Liam Thomas. There is no possible way to unbake that (beef)cake.

So now we have the trans lobby even more up in arms about having "rights taken away from them" (rights they should never have been given in the first place) and being "banned from sports" (no, sunshine, you're not banned, you're just being told to compete in the correct category).

What a mess.

Why do you keep invoking my name then misrepresenting my position? My stance on transwomen in women's sport is very well documented in this thread, and has been consistent ever since I first posted in the thread (probably about a year or so ago - I'm not sure).

And, incidentally, exactly what I argued should happen.... is happening: sports governing bodies are conducting bespoke investigations in order to garner relevant evidence, and they are then enacting policy based upon that evidence. And the first bodies that have concluded this process have indeed ruled in line with my argument. Funny, huh? It's almost as if I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Darat]

Or 3) It's such a useless observation that nobody can make heads or tails of why you felt it relevant to specify that. ...snip...

Again go back to where I first used the phrase - it made perfect sense, it was an observation.

 

[Darat]

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.

Which has nothing to do with you creating a strawman to argue against rather than arguing about what I had actually posted about.

This new topic you want to introduce I think is outside the remit of this thread - this thread in terms of pronouns is about who do we call "she" or "he".

 

[Darat]

Ask Darat. It's his definition. I'm curious to see where he's going with it, so I'm acceding for the purpose of argument. ...snip...

No it isn't my definition, it's merely one way I can think of identifying a distinct sub group of men.

What argument are you looking for?

To remind folk again - this is where I introduced it:

The question more appropriately is how many men would want to become top/world class women athletes.

...snip...

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.

...snip...

This all came about as a matter of almost idle curiosity - about how many trans women would want to compete in female sporting competitions.

I was then told by lionking that was nonsense:

More nonsense.

What is the nonsense?

That trans-women are a sub-group of men? Isn't that your position? You use "he" for someone who wants to be known as "she" so I would have thought that was your position.

That Brainster didn't don a wig to win the top place in girl's tennis competitions at school?

Then quite a while later Emily's Cat made a post I still can't understand as I can only read it to be a challenge to the idea that trans women are a subgroup of men (but later on she said that she considered that they were a sub group of men - very confusing)

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.

Genuinely, Darat: What is distinct about them? What objective characteristics distinguishes this sub-grouping of males from all of the other males?

I replied with:

That they say they are women or trans-women.

Are you not aware that most men don't say that?

The only pushback I would have thought I'd see in this thread would be about saying trans women are a subset of men rather than a subset of women. But apparently if I post they are a subset of men it seems for no other reason than it is me that has posted the statement it becomes some big thing. Rather peculiar.

 

[shuttlt]

My argument is that transmen are men, and transwomen are women. I think that is the fair and appropriate position to take, especially now that the relevant experts mainstream medical/scientific community effectively endorse that view.

Is transmen being men and transwomen being women the kind of thing that one can have an expert opinion on? It's not like "essence of man" has been discovered à la Barbarella.

 

[Darat]

Is transmen being men and transwomen being women the kind of thing that one can have an expert opinion on? It's not like "essence of man" has been discovered à la Barbarella.

I'm not the greatest fan of psychiatry and psychology (I think they are still in their infancy as sciences but that is another discussion) but they do seem to consider that there are trans men and trans women, would you say those are expert opinions?