I see you ignore the issues of sport (where transwomen injure physically weaker natal women) and prisons (where women are being raped by intact transwomen). Very telling.
I’m sticking with my misogynist call.
Which makes you a misandrist by default. You're literally fighting against equality. What else would you consider that to be?
As for sports, people get hurt all the time. In women only sports women hurt other women! GASP! Better ban women from all sports then, huh? Can't let women get hurt... unless it's by other women? You have no argument here other than to pull the old "defenseless women need protected" card. Sounds sexist and misandrist.
But that's just me.
And the dictionary.
Oh dear; there is a lot here to unpack which is VERY old ground for most participants.
Because women (adult human females) want them for a range of reasons including safety and privacy.
Because everyone deserves safety and privacy. If that were the real argument this wouldn't be an issue. People would be working towards making things better for everyone rather than attempting to ignore half of the world's population while infantizing the other half.
In most places we are sex segregating not gender segregating. In places like California it is gender segregating and various adverse outcomes have been noted.
And these adverse outcomes would exist either way because we don't actually care to deal with the real issues, which is that the world refuses to accept that everyone deserves safety, security, and privacy. You're literally arguing my point for me.
Definition of adult human female is fine in my manor - you have yet to address what is wrong with it.
As soon as you accept that it fails in several ways.
Frankly no.
Women are still disadvantaged on a wide range of issues and you appear to be telling them "don't worry, everything is equal now and it's fine for males to come into sex segregated spaces; just get over it".
Who said they're not? Men are disadvantaged in several ways as well. What's the point? But again, you're not arguing to fix the issues. You're arguing to make them worse. We have to break down gender stereotypes and gender roles. That's the only way to reach parity. Otherwise it's a bandaid. Nothing more. Pretending it isn't is insane.
Please define what a transwoman is. Is self-ID enough?
As to harm to women meet Pips Bunce who takes a place on a Top 100 women list.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html
Self-ID is fine by me. Again, gender segregation is de facto discrimination and de facto sexism. Whether you think it's for the best or not, it still is.
As for Pips Bruce? I really don't follow. More of this "MEN ARE STEALING WHAT IS RIGHTFULLY WOMEN'S!" hysteria is despicable and disgusting.
I haven't changed the subject. I've pointed to the common understanding of woman that people have merrily used for thousands of years. This is like claiming that arguing that "when did you stop beating your wife?" is a bad question is changing the subject and I should just answer it.
Other people have given other definitions that map pretty well on to the thousands of years old one that you certainly know and understand. I've also explained why the issue of the definition is a red herring. You then go on to complain that the definitions people give you don't include the things you want included. Is your problem really that people haven't defined "woman", or that the definition is unclear.... or is it that they aren't counting as women people you want to count as women?
It feels like you are doing what I said, arguing that because the definition of Mini Cooper doesn't cover all possible circumstances, then we should count Sherman Tanks as Mini Coopers. In neither the case of "woman" or Mini Coopers is the issue that the definition is defective, it's that some people want to change the definition.
The issue is there is no definition that will catch all women, even excluding trans women. There simply isn't one. Genetics doesn't work, physical characteristics don't work, social expression doesn't work. There is simply no definition that does. And without one you can't make claims.
As for the whole Mini Coopers Vs. Sherman Tanks argument? You... want to... tattoo the word woman on all people you consider to be women? I'm pretty sure Mini Coopers tend to have their make and model physically written on them somewhere. That's... an interesting... idea?
As for tradition. Traditionally people kept slaves (yes, I went there and I will again if people want to use this idiotic argument) and they weren't considered people. Tradition can go fornicate itself with an iron rod. It's used by people who have no argument and know they're wrong.
It doesn't take a lot to trend on UK Twitter - a few thousand tweets are enough. 17K isn't a huge number but it's a substantial online demonstration, and larger than many physical demonstrations will be; there were such protests outside Holyrood, the Scottish parliament, recently. The trend to #NotoselfID won't make much of a difference to how the MSPs vote today.
As for this being used to 'push sexism', eh what? The OED definition thrown up by google says sexism is "prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex".
The vote today is about gender identity, enabling men and women to identify legally as the opposite sex on the basis that this conforms to their subjective gender identity. The term 'sex' is in danger of being abolished at the behest of gender identity activists, who also seem upset with 'woman' as a term, unless referring to trans women.
Yes, "typically against women", which is exactly what you're doing. You are being sexist towards women. But also men as well. It's a big 'ol sexism fest all around in here.
And internet points don't get you anything. It's super easy to re-tweet and/or hit a button. That means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Less than nothing actually.
As for 'sex' and 'woman' and 'danger'... What? Really, what? Big, scary words that are only that: Words. Why is any of that an issue? And by the way, it's women who started this fight. They demanded equality. Now that they're getting it, they don't like it. Too bad.
People push on these definitions all the time. The OED still says that misogyny means "a feeling of hate or dislike towards women, or a feeling that women are not as good as men", but people use it far more broadly than that driven by academia and activists. Sooner or later the OED will go with the times. It's the same with phobias. There was a time that that meant one was motivated by an irrational fear. I've been corrected on this forum that now it just means something like holding a negative view of the thing. The game is social change by deconstructing words and remapping their meanings. That's how you boil the frog.
The definition in this thread seems to be "anyone who doesn't support sexism and misandry" apparently. But you're right, as time moves on people will realize that sexism should be abolished and that the genders or sexes or whatever are 99% social constructs and 1% biology and that 99% of the time that biology doesn't, and shouldn't, matter. Irrational fear is what is emanating verbatim from this thread.
Trans women are men. Trans men are women. There is no LOGICAL reason not to treat them as such
Except there is a very logical reason not to treat them that way: They don't want to be treated that way. And there is no harm to the world by treating them the way they wish to be treated. You support gay conversion camps too? Fearmongering is not a good look.
I think your mistake is treating this as if you were an alien who was attempting to design how human society ought to run based solely on reading Jeremy Bentham. People are made happy and unhappy by things that are inconvenient to the rational social planner. That's why so frequently rational social planners hit on the idea that we need to change the nature of man to conform to their rational society.
I'm not treating this like an alien, I'm treating it from my perspective and understanding. And who the hell is Jeremy Bentham? As for changing society? What changes would need to be adopted to treat people equally? It would require that we do things in order to treat people, get this, equally. By giving everyone their rights to safety, security, and dignity. Right now, you're arguing to not do that. Why? Why would making society better for everyone somehow make it worse?
Human societies are organic things, not rationalistic, propositional things. No definition or institution can ultimately give final rational justification for it being as it is and not different. If a three year old keeps asking "why?" eventually the answer is "because it is". The way this always operates is that based on a persons politics they choose things they don't like to undermine in this way. Applied consistently this would be a call to pull down everything.
So you're saying your position is irrational. At least we're getting somewhere now. And I'm not calling to pull down all of society, though that's not a bad idea. The one we live in currently is absolutely dreadful. The issue involves ingraining sexism so deeply into society that even supposedly rational people don't see it and are willing to support it with no questions asked.
You can't possibly know with certainty what the long term effect of redefining woman is. You think it would be good, I think it would be bad with equal justification.
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_27129635a4fe8dc96e.png[/qimg]
What I do see, today, is a group of people being discriminated against because they refuse to follow social norms that don't make sense and haven't made sense since society was first founded. I don't take kindly to discrimination. I've been discriminated against. It's not nice. I didn't like it. Claiming that you're being discriminated against because you're loosing a privilege isn't discrimination. It's equality.
By your argument nothing should ever change because we'll never know the true outcome of anything. Don't take that next breath! You don't know what it could lead to!
I can't roll my eyes hard enough.
I agree. That's why I said they have to meet all the eligibility criteria, including the anti-doping regulations. Testosterone use is fully covered in these regulations, as it has been a problem performance-enhancing drug in women's sport for decades.
You literally just argued that it's a bad idea to allow trans women to compete in woman's sports while saying women have been using performance enhancing drugs for decades. How do you not see the obvious conflict in that statement?
I see we had someone above suggesting that having sex-segregated intimate spaces for women is analogous to having men-only business committees or something like that. If women can have female-only showers and changing rooms then men have a right to have men-only power structures.
It leads down the same path, and don't pretend that it doesn't. I've already had the old slipper slope argument thrown at me while clamming I was using a slipper slope argument. As a society we should be moving forwards, not backwards. You want to move us backwards. Good for you. Now, why do you want to do that exactly?
Um, no. The comparable arrangement for women-only showers and changing rooms is men-only showers and changing rooms, which we have and which people who advocate for single-sex intimate spaces are not for a moment challenging. Men have modesty and comfort requirements too, and these include not having to strip off where a woman might walk in at any time, and not having a woman walk in when they are using an open urinal. This isn't a symmetrical situation but that bit is symmetrical.
No, the better arrangement for all would be to have non-segregated spaces where EVERYONE has their right to privacy and safety respected. What are you not getting about that? "We've always done things this way so we should continue to always do things this way" isn't a valid argument.
As regards sex-segregated clubs and social societies, that's a wholly different issue. I believe they should be permitted. Women-only book groups? Why not? There could be men-only book groups too. Why not? Both sexes enjoy socialising in single-sex groups with their own sex from time to time.
You do have to agree that it's sexist to do so though. There's no way around that argument. Or again, is obvious sexism not sexist for... reasons.
The problem that arises is that men have a tendency to use such groups to negotiate business deals and engage in power-play networking which excludes women who should be included in such deals and networking by reason of their employment or position in society. That is probably a subject for another thread. But it doesn't affect the issue of intimate spaces where people may be undressed or performing intimate tasks, which are sex-segregated for both sexes.
So... men and women aren't equal therefore sexism is a-ok.
Gotcha.
If any opinion "doesn't matter" because there is a group of people who disagree, then no reasonable debate can be held about anything. There is always a group of people who disagree, with anything and about anything.
Either way, it doesn't matter what the TWAW crowd think because there is a "not insignificant amount of the population would most definitely disagree" with them.
See how that works?
Yep. And I see that you continue to ignore that you have no logic to stand on so you leap to using social pressure for support.
They're not equal. Isn't this obvious?
So equality is impossible and feminism was always a lie.
PACK IT UP FOLKS! WE'RE HEADING BACK TO THE MIDDLE AGES!
An adult human female.
If you don't like this definition, propose an alternative. You seem strangely reluctant to do that.
There isn't an alternative. That's the point I'm making.
Certain spaces are sex segregated, not gender segregated. The reasons involve safety and personal dignity. These have been discussed at length before in this thread. You don't actually seem interested in understanding these issues, so I see no reason to detail them here.
And I've stated before that everyone deserves safety and privacy. The spaces we have now offer none of that for anyone. Yet, you're arguing that to change that, to make them more safe and private would be a bad thing. Why? You make no sense.
You wouldn't guess that from the responses in here, including your own.
Why is your satisfaction with a definition relevant? The definition I gave works perfectly well. It isn't circular, it's easy to understand, it's objective. And again, you've provided no alternative for consideration.
There IS no alternative because there can be no definition. You cannot make sweeping social or even scientific ideas or changes without anything to base them on. That's religion's job.
I got better.
You objected to the definition I gave, adult human female, but the basis for that objection had absolutely nothing to do with it not being workable. Your only objection was that it didn't produce the results you wanted, but that's an entirely different thing.
Your definition excludes some women and includes trans men. By definition it cannot be a definition if it doesn't include all women while also excluding trans men who do not identify as women. Fix it so that it does.
The inequality of the sexes.
There are really two groups of people who object to this simple statement of fact. There are radical feminists who object because they resent the fact that men are stronger than women, that they can pose a threat of sexual aggression towards women that, in general, women cannot adequately defend against on their own. They hate it, and it makes them angry, and they want to deny that reality.
I don't think this is you.
Most definitely not. Strike one.
The second group of people who object to this simple statement of fact is certain low status males. Because of female hypergamy, low status males have a hard time attracting female sexual interest, which is a hard situation to deal with. Some of them become women-hating incels, some of them become "male feminists" who think that mouthing hard core feminist platitudes will win them female affection (it won't, that only works for
high status male feminists). In both cases, though, they resent the special protections that society offers to females. Low status male feminists imagine themselves as polar opposites of the incels, but they really aren't. They're actually kindred spirits, they've just adopted different tactics.
Gross. Just... gross. I'd laugh but well, the fact that you would go there is incredibly problematic all on it's own. You have no idea just how problematic. You know nothing of my sexual orientation or identification yet you chose to try and force me into some category based on your "feelings". Yep, you are most definitely sexist.
Strike two. Wanna go for three?
According to what definition? It's remarkable that you keep going off about other people not providing definitions (even though I did) but you can't produce one of your own. But you act as if you have given one, and not only that, that this definition you're working with but can't provide is so obviously true that you can make statements like this as if they couldn't be challenged.
That's not logical.
Whether transwomen are women or transmen are men depends quite a bit on the definition of woman and man. Under some definitions, they are, under some definitions they are not. I provided a definition where they are not. You don't like that definition, but can't provide any reason to oppose it other than you not liking it. And you can't provide your own.
There isn't one to provide. Just a patchwork of incompatible ideas. I didn't provide a definition because there isn't one. I've said as much several time already. Can you read?
When male prisoners are housed with female prisoners and sexually assault them, that hurts women.
And women prisoners assault other women prisoners, physically and sexually. Guess we can't keep any of them in prison then as they might get hurt, even in segregated facilities. Or is it only okay if it's woman-on-woman crimes? I detect a little something off about that. Woman-on-woman. Hmm...
Why?
Chesterton's fence again. You don't understand why the barriers are there in the first place. You think that your own incomprehension is a reason to remove them, rather than a sign that you don't understand the situation. This is foolish. Only when you understand why they are there are you in any sort of position to argue why they should be removed.
So why are they there? I've been told we're striving for equality among all peoples. Those barriers are a direct affront to equality. Why should they remain then? What purpose do they serve other than to continue inequality? I don't see one and you haven't posited one that actually makes sense and isn't based in emotion. Give me one and we can talk about it. "Trust me bro" most certainly isn't one.
What were you saying before about appeals to emotion?
Yeah, this is a textbook example.
Again with the "my choice of sexism and discrimination isn't sexism and discrimination because I say so," huh?
Whether you agree with the sexism and discrimination or not does not make them any less sexist or discriminatory. I'm seeing a lot of inability to read around here.
Let's start with the alphabet then: A, B, C...
If only you could.
This line was playing on my mind. Honestly, from my male perspective, the specialness of women is self evident. The day I don't see it is the day the better part of myself has died. What kind of drab, materialist world are you trying to build? Every culture I am aware of before the dawn of writing sees this and have built it into their language, and their art. If women aren't special, something is lost from men as well. Must we all be reduced to atomised, deracinated consumers of "rationalism"? Do we all speak Esperanto in this better society?
People are people. They should be allowed to live as they so choose as long as they're not hurting anyone. You're desire to force a concept onto other people who may or may not want it placed on them means nothing in regards to that. You don't get that power. You don't get that choice.
Though you have shown just how sexist you really are. Someone up above might be able to mind read you into a nice little category though. It wouldn't be very complimentary, me thinks.
Isn't the university feminist answer to this that such things are there to serve the interests of power? The issue is that they think they know why the things were there, but are wrong.... or at least I think they are wrong because my ideology is different to theirs.
You've yet to state your ideology. I've stated mine: To reach as close to equality as possible. Not many people seem to think that's a good thing apparently.
What specific social expressions uniquely and unequivocally define a woman?
There isn't one. It's in constant flux over time and from society to society. That's why it's the only one that actually works. It accepts that the definition is always in flux and can never be pinned down. Counter-intuitively, it's a definition that there can never be a definition.
Biological sex is binary in mammals. There are only two genetic pathways for sexual development. The developmental pathway of a mammal is set at conception by genetic combination of the donor gametes. Once set, it is immutable. Human males cannot develop into human females. For this reason, binary sex in mammals is an excellent way to distinguish between, say, transwomen and women, via the "adult human female" definition. Because however undefined and undefinable the social definition of "woman" might be, the one thing we can know for sure about a transwoman is that they are not an adult human female.
No, they are an adult human with a specific organ arrangement. That's really all there is to it. And those organs carry no weight on who or what they choose to identify or live as. Why this is so important or hard to understand I have no idea.
In fact, this particular topic has been discussed in depth and at length, repeatedly throughout this thread. I've already re-hashed two long-familiar rebuttals for you. Feel free to chew on those while you wait for someone to come along and re-hash the third. Maybe by then you'll be ready to hear it.
"Look, I'm totally not sexist but I'm going to put forward sexist ideas and pretend they're not sexist."
*cough*
We have a consistent definition of woman, though: Adult human female.
No, you don't.
You have never described how the traditional definition, adult human female, fails. The fact that some people object to that definition is not a failure, it's inevitable of any definition where there's a difference of opinion.
And social expression definitions don't really work. They're basically impossible to nail down what does and doesn't count as part of that expression, they're very subjective, and trying to apply them to the same person could even produce different results on different days. That's a bad definition purely from a practical perspective, never mind the fact that it's ideologically motivated and that ideology is far from shared.
Sexism is also ideologically motivated. You seem to have no problem supporting that though. I wonder why.
GE's position is refreshingly, classically, Orwellian. The social definition is the only clear definition. The biological definition is too vague to be useful. Sex segregation in sports and prisons (and certain other places) is senseless. The sexes are identical. Etc. It's a whole paradigm in polar opposition.
How? It is text book equality, something as a species we should be striving for. You don't want that apparently. You'd rather fall back on emotional arguments while pretending they're not. Why is equality bad? Explain this to me. I've asked before and been called sexist and a misogynist. Personal attacks with no substance and definitely no support. Explain it to me as if I were a child. Let's see how long you can go before the sexism in your own argument overwhelms you.
I'm also impressed with how quickly GE went from JAQ to full woo. What, two posts?
Woo? Equality is woo now? What isn't woo then? You, and everyone else here apparently, do not believe in equality. What do you believe in then? It's certainly not the betterment of the world for all. Sad.
These responses are getting way too long. Some of you will be ignored moving forward. Sorry.
