Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[smartcooky]

Do you actually read anyone else's posts, or do you just go off on context-free rants?

The latter is most likely.

Almost no one cares about how people view themselves as far as gender goes, and indeed think that their rights should be protected as far as speech, employment, and otherwise.

This. Vixen's answers are misdirected at the wrong people for irrelevant reasons.

The main concern with most here is the changes in public policy that many TRAs want in regards to self-ID. THIS IS NOT AN ATTACK ON INDIVIDUAL TRANSGENDER PEOPLE. It is a concern for the situation of women affected by an unconditional surrender to whatever TRAs demand.

This again. It is a case where the wishes of the majority of the directly affected group, in this case, females, should prevail. If woman do not want persons who have penises between their legs, entering their toilets and changing rooms, then is the way it should be... and there should be no debate about this... otherwise you have a tiny minority dictating to the vast majority.

 

[Steersman]

Okay, so stop squabbling over names, already. The rest of of us have.

As Catholics have stopped "squabbling" over whether Jesus is the Son of God. Even if Orthodox Christians may dispute the claim; likewise with some 1.3 billion Muslims ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filioque

Don't think you quite realize that the entirely unevidenced opinions of The International Skeptics Forum on your idiosyncratic re-definitions for the sexes counts for diddly-squat among the broader and more credible community of biologists.

You might reflect on Larry Sanger's article on echo-chambers:

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/23777

 

[d4m10n]

It still wouldn't mean transwomen feel like women, or know what it feels like to be a woman.

Strictly speaking, it wouldn't mean that, but it seems at least a bit suggestive.

What one feels like is a function of how one's brain is wired and lit up at any given time.

(Unless souls are real.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

This again. It is a case where the wishes of the majority of the directly affected group, in this case, females, should prevail. If woman do not want persons who have penises between their legs, entering their toilets and changing rooms, then is the way it should be... and there should be no debate about this... otherwise you have a tiny minority dictating to the vast majority.

That's sort of what I asked a long time ago, when I begged people to describe their stance without using the term man, woman, male, female, cis, or trans.

But we cannot break out of the loop of.

"We don't want penises in the vagina room."
"I identify as a woman."
"Well that's great but that's not what I said, I said penises."

Like this entire thread just stays a "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" problem and refuses to move on from it.

Definition of "woman" and "do we separate the penises and vaginas" ARE NOT THE SAME QUESTION.

Like seriously we just rename them "Penis" and "Vagina" restrooms. Outside of the pearl clutching doesn't that solve every problem and give everyone what they want? Nobody is misgendered and nobody has to take a squat with an innie next to an outie.

But it won't make one side happy. Because I don't think anything will.

And before anyone @s me let me again reiterate I am very, very "3rd option" person in this thread who nobody agrees with so I'm not on a side here.

 

[Steersman]

That's sort of what I asked a long time ago, when I begged people to describe their stance without using the term man, woman, male, female, cis, or trans.

But we cannot break out of the loop of.

"We don't want penises in the vagina room."
"I identify as a woman."
"Well that's great but that's not what I said, I said penises."

Like this entire thread just stays a "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg" problem and refuses to move on from it.

Exactly right. What I've suggested qualifies as a monkey-trap:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/nov/14/how-to-avoid-monkey-trap-oliver-burkeman
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap

Not terribly flattering but rather accurate.

Big problem is that too many seem to have made the sexes into immutable identities. Or horcruxes that they've invested a large part of their "immortal" souls, if not the entirety of them.

Rather desperately refuse to consider that "male" and "female" are just labels that denote the presence of functional gonads, at least by the standard biological definitions.

Definition of "woman" and "do we separate the penises and vaginas" ARE NOT THE SAME QUESTION.

Like seriously we just rename them "Penis" and "Vagina" restrooms. Outside of the pearl clutching doesn't that solve every problem and give everyone what they want? Nobody is misgendered and nobody has to take a squat with an innie next to an outie.

Exactly. Why I've frequently argued that the loos should be labelled with blades and chalices - taking a page from Brown's Da Vinci Code.

Or pictures of plumbing and electrical connectors for those slow on the uptake:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners
https://www.amazon.ca/Anderson-Metals-Garden-Fitting-Connector/dp/B000FPCK3U/
https://www.amazon.ca/Anderson-Metals-Fitting-Coupling-Female/dp/B000LWXB44

But it won't make one side happy. Because I don't think anything will.

And before anyone @s me let me again reiterate I am very, very "3rd option" person in this thread who nobody agrees with so I'm not on a side here.

Know Guthrie's Alice's Restaurant?

 

[Emily's Cat]

According to the map, Iran forces gay men and non-conforming men to transition. It doesn't say anything about gay or non-conforming women, which I choose to interpret as being grim for the women.

Quite. Given that females are essentially property, there's no opportunity for a female to express their sexual orientation toward other females... they're just married off to the male that will rape them for the rest of their lives. And since females are required by law to dress in a specific fashion, "non-conforming" isn't even really a thing. Any female who somehow manages to transgress those boundaries is just murdered.

I noticed that across the board, there was no culture where transwomen are women or transmen are men, in the sense that they are always considered a separate gender; there's always a name for a woman in a man's role beyond simply referring to her as a man, for example. And all these cultures that have these gender exceptions are traditional ones with rigidly delineated gender roles.

Yep

 

[Emily's Cat]

Studies don't show 'trans brains are more like the gender the person identifies with'. All of the studies that purport to show this, as far as I am aware, fail to control for sexual orientation of participants (these studies are typically done with those who have the early-onset type of dysphoria, and are disproportionately like to be same-sex attracted).

See critique by Cantor here.

When sexual orientation is controlled for, the only difference that appears to be consistently associated with transgender identity is in the networks related to self and body perception. For example, in this study:

Structural connections in the brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation

"Several previous neuro-imaging studies have suggested that sexual differentiation of the brain is less pronounced in transgender individuals12,13,14,15, but none did specifically investigate sex, gender identity and sexual orientation in the same setting, directly comparing transgender groups with both cisgender homosexual and heterosexual controls. We found a significant main effect of Sex in several major white matter tracts (with higher FA in males), but, notably, not for Sexual orientation. Furthermore, congruent with our primary hypothesis there was a significant effect of Gender identity in the right IFOF. In the other tracts measured, the present study revealed, like in several previous studies, sex-atypical FA values in transgender individuals. However, and importantly, these values became sex-typical after accounting for sexual orientation."

This has now been replicated several times in very recent studies. I don't have time to find all the links now, but some have probably been posted already although there was one that came out just a week or two ago.

This doesn't mean that these brain difference cause gender dysphoria since brain states are simply correlates.

Exactly.

I will piggyback on this excellent post and add that the brain differences between males and females - regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity - are small enough that they are not predictive. You can't hand a neuroscientist a random brain and ask them to tell you what sex they are - they won't be able to. It's only in an aggregate comparison that the small differences are measurable.

 

[lionking]

I am not actually a feminist. However, I do think people like Angela Carter, Virginia Woolf and the French circle of radical academic feminists are well worth delving into. Because personal is political.

I fully accept that teenagers should not be allowed to change sex until they are mature enough to fully understand what they are doing and to give them a chance to change their mind. However, there are many who have been absolutely convinced from a very young age that they are in the wromng body and have no regrets at all.

Will you just stop this. Nobody can change sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I'm on the political left, and an anti-theist. Go figure!

Nearly all of the participants in this thread who disagree with the ideology behind gender identity are politically left, and largely atheists. So far as I can tell, none of the objections in this thread have come from a basis of religion.

I think a couple of people might consider themselves conservatives.

 

[theprestige]

Nihilist humanist exo-libertarian laissez-faire Chesterton's fence conservative here.

 

[Steersman]

Will you just stop this. Nobody can change sex.

Quite.

The "Big Lie" technique:

A big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. ....

Scholars say that constant repetition in many different media is necessary for the success of the big lie technique, as is a psychological motivation for the audience to believe the extreme assertions.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie

Even if the provenance of the last section is somewhat suspect, the "principle" seems durable or common enough.

 

[Steersman]

Nihilist humanist exo-libertarian laissez-faire Chesterton's fence conservative here.

Pretty difficult to put all of that on a campaign badge ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

You are making the erroneous assumption that the sole aim of a male to female transgender is to prey on women.

No, you've got this wrong. The assumption is that male predators 100% WILL claim to be transgender in order to prey on females.

How do you tell the difference between a transgender person and a male pretending to be a transgender person?

 

[Steersman]

No, you've got this wrong. The assumption is that male predators 100% WILL claim to be transgender in order to prey on females.

How do you tell the difference between a transgender person and a male pretending to be a transgender person?

Any plans afoot to address my comments in the DSD thread about extensional and intensional definitions? ....

In case you missed the salient point ...

An intensional definition gives meaning to a term by specifying necessary and sufficient conditions for when the term should be used. In the case of nouns, this is equivalent to specifying the properties that an object needs to have in order to be counted as a referent of the term.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensional_and_intensional_definitions

Do note the "necessary and sufficient conditions" ...

 

[Emily's Cat]

Assuming that EVERY SINGLE MAN who adopts a feminine persona is a lovely person who will never even embarrass a woman by his presence in sex-restricted intimate spaces, let alone perform fetishistic behaviour or pose an actual threat is quite a stretch.

Indeed. It's a naïve assumptions with abundant real-life counterexamples.

 

[Emily's Cat]

They identify as culturally female rather than as male. Just because you have never had any doubts about yourself, you can't just ride roughshod over those who do. A lot of female/male identity is to do with social conditioning and conformity rather than nature. Of course, nature is strong but not all men are aggressive and predatory and not all women are simpering wilting wallflowers.

What behaviors and preferences a person adopts are fine, no objection. A delicate, submissive, effeminate male is still a male, and being effeminate does not make them any less male. Being strong, butch, and masculine doesn't make a female any less female.

I understand that this is arguable but what I don't understand is why people are so upset about the presence of a transgender person.

FFS, nobody is actually upset about the presence of a transgender person! It's the presence of a MALE that is the problem! It's the presence of an actual, factual, real-life, body-having, evolutionarily developed MALE.

Furthermore, it's the GIGANTIC GAPING LOOPHOLE of self-id that's the problem.

 

[Emily's Cat]

IMV the average woman is more likely to be embarrassed by a typical man than any transgender character. The former are roughly 50% of the population, the later...? How likely is a transgender man likely to be found in the Ladies toilets and why should it be a problem.

Your view doesn't justify an obligation on all females. The fact that you, personally, are just fine with any random bedicked male being in places where you, personally, are naked or vulnerable... does not in any fashion imply that all females ought to feel the same.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure, there are those who want to undermine so-called 'western values' (perhaps spies for a foreign power or people with a political agenda to bring about social change). On the other hand there are transgender individuals who in good faith have identified as the opposite sex and of course once having been medically certified as fulfilling the psychological and hormonal criteria, ought to have exactly the same rights as anyone else.

I can see that there are some who would want to browbeat everyone into 'free love' or whatever but that shouldn't mean transgender individuals should not be able to live their lives in their new identity.

I strongly suggest that you catch up with what is actually going on in the world.

Here's the deal: back when the occasional male person was seen in a public restroom reserved for females... the understanding was that this person 1) had a diagnosis of gender dysphoria that was 2) persistent, severe, and long-standing, and that they had 3) undergone considerable psychological counseling to meet the criteria to transition and 4) were actively undergoing hormonal therapy and 5) either had already had or were in the process of attaining surgical transition... back then, females were willing to be compassionate and to overlook the fact that we knew they were male. Females in general did not have a problem with those old-school transsexuals.

What you seem to have missed, however, is that the current crop of transgender people do NOT fit those 5 assumptions. The fit NONE of those assumptions. Many of them do NOT have a diagnosis, and they believe that no diagnosis should be required at all. Most of them will take just enough estrogen to grow breast tissue... but NOT enough to impede their ability to maintain an erection. Most of them have no intention of EVER having any surgeries - they rather like their penises.

And... these penis-having males, most of whom are sexually attracted to females... are DEMANDING that because they say magic words about "identifying as a woman", they MUST BE GRANTED access to all single-sex female spaces WITHOUT QUESTION and AS AN ENTILTEMENT.

The result of this has been completely male-bodied athletes knocking females out of their own events, unaltered males in dresses being lauded as the "first female" (pick your label, there are lots), getting female rape victims booted from rape shelters, and convincing the prison system that known sex-offenders with a history of violence against females who only "discovered" their "identity" after being incarcerated have a RIGHT to be housed with female inmates despite having undergone ZERO transition of any sort.

The reality is not what you have assumed. Were it what you have assumed, there would be no particular complaint - there was no particular complaint back in the good old days when what you've assumed actually was the case.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Strictly speaking, it wouldn't mean that, but it seems at least a bit suggestive.

What one feels like is a function of how one's brain is wired and lit up at any given time.

Sure... but there is also the requirement that the brain has a basis for "feeling" in the first place. A person could say they feel like a cat, and they may very well believe that to be true, their brain could be convinced that they feel like a cat... but it calls into question whether their brain actually has any way of knowing what a cat actually feels like, or whether their brain is just using an assumption of what they imagine a cat might feel like.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Nihilist humanist exo-libertarian laissez-faire Chesterton's fence conservative here.

I need a jargon-to-human translation of this.