Cont: Trans women are not women (IX)

[Emily's Cat]

There was an interesting online article 'On sex and gender identity: perspectives from biology, neuroscience and philosophy' posted in another thread a while ago which included discussion of this issue about mental states.

It critiques four main claims underpinning gender identity ideology. The fourth claim is:

'Transgender people cannot be mistaken about their gender identity, even when they are observably of the opposite sex to that they believe themselves to be; i.e. gender identity is a special kind of mental state, the nature of which one cannot be wrong about.'

Clearly a special type of claim is being made about the nature of this 'inner feeling', because it is a basic and fundamental principle in psychology that people have limited access to internal mental states through introspection, and that our understanding of our mental states is fallible (hence false memories, confabulation and other cognitive biases). In fact, it can be said that psychology is about invalidating people's identities.

The authors go through a number of examples of false beliefs including Cotard's syndrome (the belief that one is dead or missing body parts) and mirrored-self misidentification syndrome, where people believe that their mirror reflection is somebody else. They also consider non-delusional mistaken mental states including false memories and inattentional blindness. They then ask how we can reconcile the clearly-supported observation that we lack reliable introspective access to our mental states, with the assumption that we have infallible access to our true gender identity, where this is defined solely as a mental state. They also suggest that people might internalize gender roles and stereotypes and mistake them for innate feelings.

This was something that struck me from the outset when I looked into this topic. It seems that all the basic principles of what we know about how the mind works are being abandoned, which is a clear warning sign. The last time clinical psychologists believed that their clients have infallible access to mental states and that they as therapists could validate these states on the basis of subjective judgement, we had repressed/recovered memories.

The main point though is that it is irrelevant whether the mental state in question is considered a delusion or product of a delusion. As quoted in the article: "it is irrelevant whether someone’s gender identity has some identifiable clinical aetiology. We are simply asking for some positive explanation of how being a man or woman (or some other combination) can be alchemized from strongly felt feelings so that intuitively absurd comparisons can be avoided: simply saying that feelings maketh the man, woman (or some other combination) is not illuminating without some positive explanation of how that alchemization is supposed to occur. We are not denying that no such explanation is available, but until one is given, the politically driven insistence that someone’s affective mental state overrides their objective biological makeup looks remarkably like culturally normalised medieval superstition."

Excellent quote! And I must say I love the reference to alchemy in there

 

[theprestige]

At one point, his cited authority was the British ministry of statistics, which had said merely that they were adopting a specific definition of gender as a convention for statistical reporting purposes. Apart from the obvious deficiency of not being or citing any actual scientific authority for their chosen definition, there's also the obvious issues with statistical reporting based on arbitrary definitions that change over time.

 

[Francesca R]

There is no UK "Ministry of Statistics". The Office for National Statistics, while part of the government, is specifically independent of ministerial supervision.

(Not sure the significance of this revelation for this thread, it ought to mean it is not captured by politicians, which is good because we wouldn't want it to lie about inflation etc)

 

[theprestige]

There is no UK "Ministry of Statistics". The Office for National Statistics, while part of the government, is specifically independent of ministerial supervision.

(Not sure the significance of this revelation for this thread, it ought to mean it is not captured by politicians, which is good because we wouldn't want it to lie about inflation etc)

Thank you. I couldn't be bothered to look up the actual name of the department. I agree it's an important distinction.

Whether or not it can be captured by ministers, it can be captured by bureaucrats, who can in turn be captured by activists. Perhaps LJ hopes that because it's an office will infer that it has not been captured, and has applied only the proper and expert due diligence to its choice of definitions. But I for one do not infer this.

 

[Elaedith]

Ahem.

SULLIVAN, A. (2018). Sex and the Office for National Statistics: A Case Study in Policy Capture. The Political Quarterly, 92(4), 638-651.

 

[theprestige]

Haha oh wow.

 

[Steersman]

Ahem.

SULLIVAN, A. (2018). Sex and the Office for National Statistics: A Case Study in Policy Capture. The Political Quarterly, 92(4), 638-651.

Yeah. Though the ONS is, sadly, not the only Statistics Department being corrupted by transgender dogma. You may wish, or you may not wish ..., to take a gander at my elaboration on that theme:

https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted

The ONS is one of the three that I target, but New Zealand's and Canada's own have to take their lumps on that score. Particularly egregious claim is the former's insistence that:

Lesbian: A woman who is sexually attracted to people of the same sex or gender.

And while Canada's does make some effort to differentiate between sex and gender, they manage to shoot themselves in the feet when it comes to defining gender itself:

Male gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as male. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as male.

Female gender: This category includes persons whose current gender was reported as female. This includes cisgender and transgender persons whose current gender was reported as female.

"Circular Definitions R Us" - idiots. Link to my submission to Stats Canada objecting to their "ideological capture" in the Substack article.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, I am gonna keep this brief cause she is free to join the forum. But basically she sees your line of questioning as a 'gotcha' when the real issue (to her) is trying to make feel this group feel more included rather than excluded, as 'outcasts' So in other words, try to accommodate and seek solutions rather than looking for potential problems to shut down the entire effort.
This is *her* response, so please no need to argue with me

How far does your spouse think that making males with gender identity issues feel "included" should extend?

Does that "make them feel welcomed" extend to prisons? Should male inmates who have declared a gender identity of "woman" be housed with female inmates - without the consent of those females? Even if they've had no surgery at all and are fully intact and functional?

The thing I'd like to point out to your spouse - and you by the way - is that this is NOT about TRANS. It's about MALES in FEMALE only spaces. Not a single one of us here is "anti trans". Every single one of us supports the right of any individual to dress, present, and express themselves free from the restraints of gendered expectations and social roles.

But... and it's a very big but... SEX is still a real thing, and it matters. Being respectful and supportive of transgender people should not require us to all pretend that sex doesn't exist, or to ignore the reality of our sexual dimorphism. A person's internal and subjective sense of their affinity to one of society's restrictive gender roles shouldn't override sex in policy, law, or basic consideration.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not what she said. You are prone to this style of putting word in others' mouths.
What she did say, and what you have not convincingly responded to, is seeking proof (not anecdotes) that this type of behavior will become significantly more widespread or worse as a result of these changes.

How many rapes of a female inmate does your spouse think is "too much" before they decide that males shouldn't be housed with females while being completely intact? What's the number of females your spouse is willing to sacrifice in order to allow some males to feel "included"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I think as more people learn to value empathy, and learn to recognize the differences between individuals as not inherently bad but just different, the incidence of bad actors will gradually decrease. Pretty Utopian, perhaps, but I can visualize it.

Sure, sure, which is totally why as we've become more inclusive and more caring and more compassionate over the eons... the rate of rapes and the prevalence of male violence have dropped to near nothing...

This is a pacifist argument you're putting forth. And it only works if EVERYONE ELSE is also a pacifist. If every single person on the planet values empathy and would absolutely never ever harm another person, sure, it would work fine. But reality has psychopaths, sociopaths, people with anger management issues, and people who are just straight up opportunistically selfish and greedy and don't care about what might hurt another person.

Murders and thieves and rapists do actually exist. It's irrational to insist that "good people" must leave their doors unlocked with a hatchet just inside in order to "prove" how good they are.

 

[Emily's Cat]

California law prohibits indecent exposure (CA code 314)
Can you provide me one citation showing that law has been overturned?
Can you give me one example of a person convicted for challenging an exhibitionist?
If not, you are just making stuff up.

What constitutes indecent exposure? Does that apply in a situation like WiSpa, where the customers tacitly consent to see the nudity of other people, with the expectation that those other people will be of the same sex?

The law in CA also says that a person's gender identity has to be viewed as being synonymous with sex - that if a male person claims a "women" gender identity, they must be treated as if they are female.

So... where does that leave us? It leaves us in a situation where a Korean spa - where customers are naked, and separated by sex - MUST allow a male who identifies as a "woman" to use the FEMALE side of the spa.

Is that indecent exposure? The females present certainly thought it was. But from a legal standpoint?

That's the problem with self-declared gender identity being allowed by policy and law to be viewed as synonymous with sex. It creates a situation in which a bad actor can LEGALLY act badly, it creates a gigantic gaping loophole that is visible from space, and which allows voyeurs and exhibitionists to behave in ways that would generally be considered unacceptable... and to do so under the auspices of legality simply make saying magic words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I misread, thanks for the clarification. But whether it is 'fiat' or not (a term hardly ever used as far as I can tell from a quick search) that doesn't change the fact that it is not simply a biological man saying "I am a woman" and bingo they get instant certification as a woman. There are still procedures in place, the laws you cite still talk about filling out paper work and waiting periods. So in other words, I personally can't just walk into a woman's restroom right now, expose myself, and expect to be able to defend myself in court once im arrested by saying "But I m a woman!" Even in California!

1) The law says "fill out this paper and wait a few weeks" in order to get IDENTIFICATION listing one as the wrong sex

2) Policy-wise, nobody is allowed to "discriminate" against transgender people when it comes to the use of single-sex spaces

3) Socially, nobody is allowed to ASK FOR IDENTIFICATION

So... where does that leave us? Businesses can't insist on "papers please", so in effect, papers are not required.

There is no requirement for any sort of diagnosis, treatment, or even presentation in order to gain said documentation. It is issued on the basis of magic words.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How are they at risk in a men's prison?

Why does a male being at risk of male violence in a male prison justify increasing the risk to females by placing males with them against their will?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don' t vehemently disagree with this--I just lean toward the second sentence and you clearly are dug in on the first. I see the effort to discriminate against LGBTQ groups more dangerous than the reverse. So now that we are fully in agreement, let someone else bring up Hitler and then we're done!

Just so we've explicitly clear... It's not an effort to discriminate against LGBTQ groups. This forced pairing is in poor taste.

There is absolutely zero effort to discriminate against LGB in any fashion. T is NOT a sexual orientation, and has nothing at all to do with LGB. And Q is so poorly defined that it is essentially anybody and everybody, and it has no place in this discussion at all.

In fact, a rather large (and growing) number of LGB are rather opposed to the overreach by T. Gay males do not want to be pressured to have sex with vaginas, and do not wish to allow female individuals into their private gay male venues solely because those females have adopted the gender identity of "man". Lesbians are sick to death of being harassed and derided for not accepting a male penis into their sex lives because the "ladydique" belongs to a male who identifies as a "woman".

The sheer gall of telling gays or lesbians that they are "transphobic" because they don't consent to intercourse with people of the opposite sex is astonishing. And failure to acknowledge and understand this rift in "the community" is 100% the result of having opinions force-fed to you by media - media which does its level best to make sure you do NOT hear about all of the events that make the poor marginalized middle/upper class white males look bad.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yep, they've been raped by prison guards too, you'd think that should not happen but it certainly does.

"Well, those chicks are already getting raped, what's a little more rape added to it? No big deal. I mean, it keeps a dude from getting hurt, who cares if some silly little chicks get hurt, they don't count"

I cannot adequately express how incredibly incensed your comment makes me. The complete lack of care for the safety and dignity of females makes me irate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I understand your point. But from my perspective, the way you phrase it, it is Inherently a problem to house a self-identified woman with another woman, if the former has a penis. It *assumes* the former is a sexual predator. A penis is not necessary to sexually assault another individual, but it certainly could be used that way.
And again, I am mostly playing devil's advocate here (as I have from the start!) because I am not sure it is a good idea, either. But I haven't arrived at your absolute certainty that it is. I think I would literally have to visit a prison (as I once did on numerous occasions as a public defender!) to talk to the parties who are directly affected by this, to arrive at a conclusive opinion about it. I dare say you've never directly talked to the parties whoese interests are directly at stake.

It does NOT assume that they are sexual predators.

It does, however, acknowledge the ******* reality that 99% of all sexual assaults are committed by males, and 95% of the victims of sexual assault are females!

 

[Emily's Cat]

More to the point, consistently in this discussion, you start with the premise that basically *all* trans women are not only biological males, but males in every respect, psychologically, emotionally, societally....

Okay, now I'm really curious.

1. What makes a person psychologically male or female? What are the psychological hallmarks of a female and of a male?
   
2. What makes a person emotionally male or female? What are the emotional characteristics of a female and of a male?
   
3. What makes a person societally male or female? What are the societal indicators of a female and of a male?

I eagerly await your responses.

 

[Emily's Cat]

1) Are women being asked/forced to actually share a cell with a transwoman? Or are they being asked to share a prison wing with transwomen (with, one would presume/hope, separate times for showers and other ablutions)?

Yes, forced to share actual cells.

2) Women are not being asked to share prison wings with men. Women are being asked to share prison wings with transwomen. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Trans"women" are males. They are no more women than you.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm going to quote the Oklahoma lawsuit a little bit more because it seems to me they've summed up what the gender critical folks call "gender ideology" in just two paragraphs.

Here they are:


I'd be interested in hearing from you folks whether these statements strike you as demonstrable in the way that scientific claims typically are, or whether they are something else, such as statements of what people ought to believe in or value.

Those statements are complete woo. I've seen better arguments from homeopaths.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's an oversimplification. There are actually a lot more female sexual predators than is commonly understood.

But they don't follow the same pattern as male sexual predators. They rarely use violence to obtain sex from their victims, and they generally don't target strangers. For example, female sexual predators often target willing but underage boys, from a position of familiarity or even authority (for example, teachers who have sex with students).

So while there are still plenty of female sexual predators out there, the differences in their patterns of predation make their threat profile very different as well. And one of the consequences of that difference is that access to private sex segregated spaces doesn't really change the risk profile for female sexual predators. But for male sexual predators, who often do use violence and often do target strangers, access to sex segregated spaces is a significant risk factor.

Fair point. There are a lot of male children who have been sexually abused or exploited by adult females in a way that I view as being rape, but which seem to be "acceptable" to a lot of people. I don't understand why it would be acceptable, though. And it is certainly under-reported.

I ran across some info about child sex abuse recently, that showed that the incidence of abuse for male and female children were pretty close... but it suggested that the perpetrators were almost exclusively male. The focus was on pre-pubertal children, so I tend to suspect there's less of the "it's okay when it happens to males" crap in there, but I'm not certain.