Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[theprestige]

So you agree that men changing sex to female who have gone through 'corrective surgery' are rightfully female, if not by substance, at least by style?

No I do not. For one thing, I reserve "male" and "female" for binary sex, as determined by genetics not surgery or hormone treatment. And I believe "female by style" - which I refer to in terms of gender as a social construct - is essentially meaningless when divorced from sex.

I don't believe that males can change sex to female. I reject any and all attempts to subvert language to try to make it seem otherwise.

And I believe the discussion about public policy for trans access to female spaces would be very different if it were actually about people who have invested heavily in body modification to try to successfully pass as female. But it isn't about those people. Lady Campbell's situation is not the issue. Lia Thomas's situation is the issue. Darren Merager's situation is the issue. The situation of that scumbag in Canadia whose name I forget is the issue. Your appeals to Lady Campbell do not address that issue.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why on earth would a psychiatrist pump her full of male hormones at age 14?

Why did John Money try to force David Reimer to act out sexual intercourse with his twin brother?

Psychiatrists and psychologists have done some pretty ****** up things. I can't explain them, but I don't need to either. If we don't accept Campbell's account, then we cannot conclude that she even was given male hormones, because that's part of her account too, we don't have independent records of that. And you have still given me no reason to dismiss her account.

 

[theprestige]

Why on earth would a psychiatrist pump her full of male hormones at age 14?

You'd have to ask the psychiatrist, I suppose. My speculation? Because the psychiatrist is a dupe, or a tool, or both.

 

[theprestige]

That difference in performance will be 100% to do with social reasons (nurture). Statistics in the UK show that girls get consistently higher grades than boys in exams, so you can't claim lesser intelligence.

If you say so. I'm not actually disputing any of that. And none of it is actually relevant to the claim LJ was making, or my rebuttal of that claim.

 

[Rolfe]

You'd have to ask the psychiatrist, I suppose. My speculation? Because the psychiatrist is a dupe, or a tool, or both.

However, it's reasonable to ask why the psychiatrist would have given her male hormones if she had actually had testicles of her own busy producing oodles of the stuff. The point is, she didn't, because she was a girl. Only in that situation does the administration of male hormones make any sense at all.

 

[shuttlt]

Maybe if we look hard, we can find an even less well documented case to disagree on?

 

[d4m10n]

Why on earth would a psychiatrist pump her full of male hormones at age 14?

Because that psychiatrist was trained in blank-slate Freudianism rather than evidence-based medicine.

 

[Rolfe]

And also because that psychologist knew she was a girl and so would never produce male hormones of her own.

 

[Rolfe]

This is rather good. And quite funny.

The dangerous narcissism of the trans lobby

That Topshop assistant who refused Alabanza entry to the girls’ changing rooms was not a ‘transphobe’ – she was a hero. In her own way she was standing up, not only for the girls inside that space, but also for the reality of sex, for truth. It was Alabanza who was the oppressor, demanding dominion in other people’s territory, while the sales assistant was defending freedom: the freedom of association of women and girls. Society may have lost its bottle when it comes to maintaining borders and recognising binaries and defending scientific truth, but she hadn’t. We need more people like her, more people willing to say to men in dresses: ‘You’re not allowed in here. Get out.’

 

[Steersman]

Wait wait wait again.

Does Steersman actually think that "RONG" is the way the word is spelled, or is this another affectation? He's done it often enough now that it doesn't appear to be a simple typo.

Of course not. "rong" is, of course, the WRONG way to spell "wrong" - but it emphasizes the point.

Not all that common a phrase, but certainly not anything I've pulled out of my nether regions either:

Re Searle, sometimes I just cannot understand how people’s minds (however constituted!) work, how they can just be so obviously (not even) rong!

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012...d-theologians-at-cern-but-why/#comment-300981

And the blog author, noted biologist, cat person (no one's perfect ...), and raconteur Jerry Coyne uses the same phrase:

And, at the outset, the the theologian-philosophers parade their hauteur, trying to tell physicists that they’re doing it rong (Pinsent, mentioned below, has degrees in physics and philosophy and is on the theology faculty at Oxford):

The first quote alludes to a classic statement by an early progenitor of quantum mechanics, Wolfgang - Wolfie, baby! - Pauli which was picked up for use in Peter Woit's:

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

https://www.amazon.com/Not-Even-Wrong-Failure-Physical/dp/0465092764

But of maybe some topical interest is Coyne's lead-off statement:

Unlike some of my readers, I don’t dismiss all academic philosophy as worthless. The discipline imparts the tools of logic and thought that can clarify questions and bring contradictions to light.

 

[Rolfe]

OK, it's an affectation.

It would be nice to have some of the substantive challenges to your position addressed in such detail.

 

[Steersman]

Wait wait wait.

<snip>

Have I finally got it right?

By George, I think you've got it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk

At least to a first approximation in any case, though there may be a few devils in the details:

If I understand you right, you're basically in agreement that we need some structure-absent-function criteria for segregating sports. You just don't think we should use the terms "male" and "female" for the two categories, because those terms refer to function?

Basically, that's correct, although "structure-absent-function" may be moot, may be a bit problematic as there might be functions other than reproductive abilities that might be useful qualifications. Although that's little more than a shot-in-the-dark, some idle speculations.

There's broad agreement to use the terms "male" and "female" as a shorthand the technical details of the biological structures and their genetic origins. These terms are rooted in longstanding social and medical conventions in English, as terms denoting the generally obvious structural distinctions between men and women, without getting into the underlying biology or genetics, or even inquiring into functional concerns. These conventions are well attested to in various dictionaries, which describe language use, and in biology literature, which gives us many examples of accredited biologists using the terms in a structural context.

Sure - if it was JUST a matter of "a shorthand" then I would probably have at least a thinner beef. But in many cases, it's not.

For instances, it manifests in the pigheadedly ignorant, quite unscientific, and seriously problematic claptrap that "sex is immutable (!!11!!)" - peddled by a bevy of usual suspects including Maya Forstater, various "gender-critical" feminists, and "philosopher" Kathleen Stock who at least should know better.

Likewise with the "idea" that everyone is either born male or female, or that we're "assigned" a sex at birth. By the standard biological definitions, all we're issued is a ticket that may or may not be "redeemed for points" some 10 or 15 years down the road.

It seems you might quibble with the exact biological criteria for your preferred structure-absent-function definition of the sexes, but what you absolutely object to is the use of the terms "male" and "female" for that structure-absent-function definition.

Not sure if that's a mistake on your part because I've been anathematizing that "structure-absent-function definition" from square one.

There may well be other criteria that would be more useful than functional gonads, than the presence of two distinctly different and profoundly consequential processes leading to two types of gametes. But those seem to be a reasonable starting point for function-only definitions.

But I don't see anything to object in the last part of your sentence. Really don't think that society can justifiably - or sanely - use "male" and "female" to denote the differentia of two profoundly different and quite antithetical categories. The whole problem with the transgender *********** is the efforts of transactivists to redefine those terms to refer to both genders and gender-identities. "structure-absent-function" definitions just compounds that problem.

 

[Steersman]

OK, it's an affectation.

Hardly, particularly given its provenance.

It would be nice to have some of the substantive challenges to your position addressed in such detail.

Don't think you've been paying attention, being charitable.

I've been quoting chapter and verse to justify my arguments which you seem rather quick to dismiss without bothering to even read or think about what's on the table.

 

[d4m10n]

Basically, that's correct, although "structure-absent-function" may be moot, may be a bit problematic as there might be functions other than reproductive abilities that might be useful qualifications.

I doubt there are any mainstream sports that hinge on reproductive abilities at all, but I'd likely tune in if they came up with one.

Some of the other trans issues discussed here are about reproduction, however.

 

[smartcooky]

It's interesting that when the IOC was conducting SRY gene tests on female athletes they weren't even thinking about the trans issue. They were thinking about countries entering male athletes who might pass as female with a bit of coaching and a bit of luck, so as to scoop up medals.

They didn't find any cases of that, which is why they decided the cost of the testing wasn't worth it. What they did find, I suspect, was DSD cases, but since these people weren't deliberately trying to cheat (or at least couldn't be proved to be deliberately trying to cheat), but they decided to leave that hot potato alone. Now that we've seen Caster Semenya and other similar cases emerge following the discontinuing of that testing, and there is a suspicion that rather than coaching normal males countries are seeking out boys with 5ARD and other similar conditions to win those medals, there are calls to reinstate it.

This is all happening at the same time as the trans nonsense, and in context it would now appear that nobody needs to coach a man to pretend to be a woman, or to scour the countryside for 5ARD boys registered as female at birth, all they have to do is to persuade a couple of their slightly less-than-top-rank male athletes to transition and that's the job done.

Well there are numerous proven instances of athletes cheating by faking disabilities to compete in Paralympic competitions in order to scoop up medals, and those are not even premier level competitions. Why would those kinds of cheats not pretend to self ID as female in order to scoop up medals and awards in women's comps? Its much easier to self ID as a woman than to fake a disability, and the cash rewards are far greater.

 

[Steersman]

I doubt there are any mainstream sports that hinge on reproductive abilities at all, but I'd likely tune in if they came up with one.

Remember seeing a documentary 5 or 6 decades ago - - about how the birth rate dropped precipitously following the The Crash of 1929. A "solution" was to have a contest the objective of which was to have as many kids as possible in a 5 or 10 year span - $5000 or $10,000 prize if I remember correctly.

One could imagine that qualifications to be checked would be fertility ...

Some of the other trans issues discussed here are about reproduction, however.

Remember seeing the story several years ago in the popular press:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-baby-hospital-missed-labor-signs/3692201002/

The problems that follow from pandering to the delusional. With getting sloppy - or self-serving - with our definitions ...

 

[theprestige]

By George, I think you've got it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVmU3iANbgk

At least to a first approximation in any case, though there may be a few devils in the details:



Basically, that's correct, although "structure-absent-function" may be moot, may be a bit problematic as there might be functions other than reproductive abilities that might be useful qualifications. Although that's little more than a shot-in-the-dark, some idle speculations.



Sure - if it was JUST a matter of "a shorthand" then I would probably have at least a thinner beef. But in many cases, it's not.

For instances, it manifests in the pigheadedly ignorant, quite unscientific, and seriously problematic claptrap that "sex is immutable (!!11!!)" - peddled by a bevy of usual suspects including Maya Forstater, various "gender-critical" feminists, and "philosopher" Kathleen Stock who at least should know better.

Likewise with the "idea" that everyone is either born male or female, or that we're "assigned" a sex at birth. By the standard biological definitions, all we're issued is a ticket that may or may not be "redeemed for points" some 10 or 15 years down the road.


Not sure if that's a mistake on your part because I've been anathematizing that "structure-absent-function definition" from square one.

There may well be other criteria that would be more useful than functional gonads, than the presence of two distinctly different and profoundly consequential processes leading to two types of gametes. But those seem to be a reasonable starting point for function-only definitions.

But I don't see anything to object in the last part of your sentence. Really don't think that society can justifiably - or sanely - use "male" and "female" to denote the differentia of two profoundly different and quite antithetical categories. The whole problem with the transgender *********** is the efforts of transactivists to redefine those terms to refer to both genders and gender-identities. "structure-absent-function" definitions just compounds that problem.

Dang. I thought I had it figured out. But now it sounds like you really do want a functional definition, in order to do sex segregation in public policy.

And I really do think a structural definition is more practical in every sense.

 

[Steersman]

Dang. I thought I had it figured out. But now it sounds like you really do want a functional definition, in order to do sex segregation in public policy.

Some of it, but I think you're missing a step or two.

I want - or rather endorse - a functional definition for the sexes since they seem essential and foundational to pretty much all of biology.

But that doesn't mean I want - doesn't mean Griffiths wants - to use that for "sex segregation in public policy".

It MAY have some use in some cases - dating sites, object matrimony (and kids), for example. And it is kind of essential for science and biology classes for the kiddies.

But kind of useless for sports and toilets.

And I really do think a structural definition is more practical in every sense.

Sure - but WHAT are you going to CALL individuals in your categories?

XXers and XYers work for me - clearly structural, and provides a name that probably covers all of those who might, do, or did produce gametes of one sort or the other.

Think you're kind of stuck on the names, and don't realize they're somewhat arbitrary.

 

[d4m10n]

But now it sounds like you really do want a functional definition, in order to do sex segregation in public policy.

Either that or we're going to need thrice as many bathrooms & changing rooms.

1. Male
2. Female
3. Pre-male
4. Pre-female
5. Post-male
6. Post-female

Maybe "sexless" and/or "mixed" as well.

 

[theprestige]

Remember seeing a documentary 5 or 6 decades ago - - about how the birth rate dropped precipitously following the The Crash of 1929. A "solution" was to have a contest the objective of which was to have as many kids as possible in a 5 or 10 year span - $5000 or $10,000 prize if I remember correctly.

One could imagine that qualifications to be checked would be fertility ...

Why would they need to check fertility, for such a contest? Wouldn't the live birth, certified by the attending physician, be more than enough?