Cont: Transwomen are not women - part XI

[Emily's Cat]

The trouble is that society at large does not and never has treated sex as a binary.

Baloney. Society at large definitely treats sex as binary. Which is good, because it IS a binary.

 

[Ziggurat]

Traditional social gender roles, which, once stripped of her denial of human nature, is what it comes down to.

I don't see that at all. I think you're creating a straw man bailey to justify attacking a motte that you can't object to on its own.

People like me being a broken version of the category "man"
(which, let's face it, society will always regard the sissy as being second class) rather than a well adjusted member of my own category.

Again, I don't see any of that coming from Rowling. Furthermore, "man" or not, you are unequivocally male, are you not? Unless you have been lying to us, there is no ambiguity there, no confusion about categories.

False dichotomy. The trans side may have a Motte too

Perhaps. I don't see it from Rowling. I see no reason to smear Rowling's argument with bad arguments from other people that she never made or agreed with.

that doesn't stop the "sex is real" position being a Motte.

Sex is real, and in humans it's binary. You can call it a motte if you want, but it's still true. Nothing you've said suggests otherwise.

And I'm not a trans activist..

I never said you were.

I regard them as being closer to the "sex is real" position.

Then you are deeply, deeply confused about what the radical trans activists are doing, because they're very much arguing for what amounts to sex not being real.

 

[Robin]

You have lived 0% of your life as a female.
.

Well I live full time with a biological female so we can test your ingenious little theory out.

So BM=Biological Male
BF=Biological Female

And remember the context of my remark was about the process of transition and "living your life as the opposite sex" and I was asking what you would do differently if I was "living my life as a woman".

According to you and in the context of my remark you were answering, BM can do nothing that BF does.

BM: Gets up and goes shopping for stuff for kids breakfast and lunch.
BF: Hurries kids up to get dressed and puts helps them out together what they need for the day
BM & BF: Prepare and pack kids' breakfast and lunch
BM: Take kid to station
BF: Gets together material for the youngest kids home schooling.

Since each of these is something the other do then this is so far that we have lived our lives in common.

So I have lived 100% of my day as a woman and my wife has lived 100% of her day as a man.

(What else did you think ""live my life" meant?)

OK, I'm going to pop off and smoke some cigars at the Woman Oppressing Club and then check back and test more of your theory out.

Which is what I was talking about. So your 0% theory is busted already

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, that is a lot.

I’m pretty sure the definition of bigot does not require wanting to actually harm a group, only that they be prejudiced against them (paraphrased, not a formal definition). As far as that goes, I feel like believing that being trans-women aren’t women and should not be treated like women probably fits the bill. Spreading fear-mongering misinformation helps.

Based on your referenced timeline of JKR's horrible transphobia... I conclude that the only way a female can avoid being labeled as a transphobe is if they never ever ever dare to question whether it makes sense to give males of all sorts immediate privilege to female spaces, against the will and consent of any females.

Basically, the only way to not be a transphobe is for females to become completely secondary to males.

Because at the end of the day, transgender identified males are still males. And the overwhelming majority of them retain their fully functional male genitalia. And with self-id as the policy, they aren't even required to present in typical female clothing in any fashion.

So yeah. Unless females unconditionally surrender all female spaces, sports, etc. to any male who wishes to be there... we must be considered transphobes. Of course, we also have to forego referring to ourselves as "women" and must accept being called "people who menstruate" and "cervix havers" and "bleeders" and any other dehumanizing term that the trans rights activists decide that females should be called.

Yay, progress.

 

[d4m10n]

Traditional social gender roles, which, once stripped of her denial of human nature, is what it comes down to.

The thing about an accusation of motte-and-bailey is that you have to be able to point to an individual or a movement making the less defensible claim and then retreating to the more defensible one. I don't believe this has been happening with a retreat to "sex is real" from "traditionally gendered social roles ought to remain normative." At least, not that we've talked about here. Possibly some tradcons have made this move somewhere...?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Well, that is a lot.

I’m pretty sure the definition of bigot does not require wanting to actually harm a group, only that they be prejudiced against them (paraphrased, not a formal definition). As far as that goes, I feel like believing that being trans-women aren’t women and should not be treated like women probably fits the bill. Spreading fear-mongering misinformation helps.

I feel like being forced to accept any male who wants to be in female-only spaces, and being called names if I don't consent to being viewed naked by males against my will, or if I don't consent to letting any male who wanders into a female changing room expose their genitals to me is a bit... hmm... prejudicial against females.

There's a term for that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The thing is, no-one has ever claimed that people can change their chromosomes and it is disingenuous to imply that they are.

So we all agree that we cannot change chromosomal sex.

But people who get bullied for being sissies are not being bullied for having the wrong chromosomes. They are being bullied for not following the arbitrary sex behaviour rules.

What we really need to do is to convince society at large that either sex based behaviour rules are irrational or else sex is a concept that goes beyond chromosomes.

I fully support convincing society that sex-based behavior rules are ********.

Sex isn't defined by chromosomes. Chromosomes are the primary mechanism by which sex differentiation occurs, but they do not define sex. And trying to convince society that sex is super complex and a spectrum is a daft idea that is incredibly anti-scientific.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So would I be correct to think that your preferred "solution" is to ban trans women and trans girls from all competitive sport at every level (from primary school sports days upwards)?

Oh good spaghetti monster. Nobody has suggested that all transgender identified males be banned from sports altogether.

Rather, that males be banned from participation on female sports teams, regardless of how they identify. Fully allowed to participate in male sports, as well as co-ed sports.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think there are plenty of conversations to have and I’m not claiming to have many answers at all. What Rowling is doing is denying that trans gender is a real thing.

Post proof or retract.

Maybe not, but denying that transgender people who are not women also menstrate kinda is.

Any human who menstruates is female.

 

[Robin]

Perhaps. I don't see it from Rowling. I see no reason to smear Rowling's argument with bad arguments from other people that she never made or agreed with.

Who smeared her argument? Not me.

Sex is real, and in humans it's binary. You can call it a motte if you want, but it's still true. Nothing you've said suggests otherwise.

I am wondering why you never address what I am saying.

Can you answer explicitly, Are you saying that when people say "man" and "woman" they are only referring to biological sex and they are not referring to any social grouping whatsoever?

 

[Robin]

Perhaps. I don't see it from Rowling. I see no reason to smear Rowling's argument with bad arguments from other people that she never made or agreed with.

Who smeared her argument? Not me.

Sex is real, and in humans it's binary. You can call it a motte if you want, but it's still true. Nothing you've said suggests otherwise.

I am wondering why you never address what I am saying. Biological sex is a binary. The concept of "sex" as used in everyday life (and as it has always been used) does not mean purely biological sex and is not a binary

Can you answer explicitly, Are you saying that when people say "man" and "woman" they are only referring to biological sex and they are not referring to any social grouping whatsoever?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Uhh... well, you know her very opening gambit, when she stated that only (cis) women* can menstruate? That bit, for example.


* Because some trans men menstruate as well. And in denying the notion that some trans men also menstruate, she literally is denying that transgender identity is a real thing.

Baloney.

Only females menstruate. Anyone who menstruates is female. Transmen are female. By the most commonly understood meaning of the word, transmen are women. Transwomen are men.

Mare. Doe. Cow. Hen. Vixen. Woman.

Stallion. Buck. Rooster. Fox. Man.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In reference to the Rowling quote where she tried to beat up some vague threat to gays from the trans community by saying: "If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. "

So it is relevant.

FYI... there are a fair number of transgender identified males out there who are trying really really hard to redefine homosexuality as being attraction to people of the same "gender"... and then those same males complain that lesbians are transphobes because they aren't willing to have sex with the transgender identified male's "ladydique".

IMO pressuring lesbians that they must have sex with penises in order to not be vilified is pretty seriously homophobic. But maybe that's just me.

 

[Robin]

I fully support convincing society that sex-based behavior rules are ********.

If you think that will change you are kidding yourself.

We thought we were breaking down the gender boundaries back in the 70s and 80s. But here we are in the third decade of the 21st century and they are still very much in place.

When do you envisage we succeed in separating the concept of sex from the arbitrary set of social rules? How are you going about doing this?

I bet if you saw me wearing a dress you would assume I was wearing women's clothes. Just as most people would.

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you.when a man falls in love with a man it is a different form of love than when a man falls in love with a woman?

Love, no. Sex, yes.

 

[Robin]

IMO pressuring lesbians that they must have sex with penises in order to not be vilified is pretty seriously homophobic. But maybe that's just me.

Pressuring people to have sex that they don't want is wrong in any context. I have just said that a few posts back.

As I have said I doubt that it is more than a vanishingly insignificant proportion of transwoman who would wish to do so.

 

[Robin]

Love, no. Sex, yes.

Different plumbing certainly, but same basic aim.

That is to say, a deeply intimate expression of love and affection between people.


(Of course for some it's just getting your jollies, but that also happens in both cases)

 

[Emily's Cat]

So you and I are in full agreement then: the statement "only women can menstruate" signals a fundamental denial of transgender identity.

It signals that a transgender identity doesn't alter reality. It signals that a male who identifies as a woman is not, in actuality, a real woman. Just as a person who identifies as Napoleon Bonaparte isn't actually, in reality, Napoleon.

It doesn't deny that a person my have a transgender identity. Only that their belief does not change reality.

Remember: this was originally all about whether or not JK Rowling had actually exhibited anti-transgender-identity sentiment in any of her public statements. Turns out that her very first prominent public statement on this issue - the tweet in which she directs mocking outrage towards a public health message referring to "people who menstruate", followed by her effectively positing that "only women can menstruate" - was precisely and categorically a denial of transgender identity (as we can both agree, wrt our previous few posts in this thread). And Rowling has made many more anti-transgender-identity pronouncements since then.

You know what? This is some privileged ******** take you've got.

As a female of the human species, I am incredibly incensed by being referred to as "a person who menstruates" or as a "cervix haver". It robs me of my core humanity, it relegates me to nothing more than a set of bodily functions. It is incredibly offensive.

That you, a m ale of the species who is NOT having the words used to describe themselves obliterated, think that all females should just roll over and accept being reclassified as a bag of body parts at risk of you - a male - deciding that we're evil transphobes... is so much patriarchal privilege I just don't even know where to start.

Seriously. The gall of it. I've got a male insisting that it's inappropriate for females to be offended by being called "menstruators"... because clearly a male knows what's best for females, we don't need to be bothered to think for ourselves. Un-*******-believable.

 

[d4m10n]

Uhh... well, you know her very opening gambit, when she stated that only (cis) women can menstruate?

Let's look at what JKR actually wrote: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313

She seems to be arguing that it's okay to use the word "women" rather than the new more narrowly tailored language.

I suppose there are three possible stances here:

1) The old terminology is generally preferable and doesn't unduly exclude anyone.
2) Use either the old terminology or the new terminology as you wish, depending on context and circumstances.
3) The new terminology is generally preferable and it's bigoted and wrong to use the old terminology.

Possibly JKR was implicitly arguing for the first position, but it seems more likely to me she was pushing back against the third one. Doesn't really matter, though, because none of these positions entail "denying that trans gender is a real thing" but are rather arguments about which language is preferable to describe a specific set of people, the vast majority of whom are neither trans men nor non-binary females.

 

[d4m10n]

Upon reflection, is the claim that people are "denying that trans gender is a real thing" just another bailey, or are there actual examples of people doing it?