Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Emily's Cat]

It's actually quite funny how often we see this "exist" formulation. Indeed one of the most common claims that TRA have in their bag is that somehow we are denying that they exist, which of course would be pretty foolish. They exist and they are human beings, quite obviously.

Of course, what they really mean is that we are denying their self-identified gender and at that point the response is, "No ****, Sherlock."

It's not even that - for the most part, nobody generally denies that they feel like they are whatever gender they have chosen. With some exceptions where most people think the person is lying* we pretty much accept that they feel however the hell they feel.

What is being denied is that their feelings - their belief - makes them a different sex, or that their feelings - their belief - is more important than sex.

There is no other topic in the developed world where a person's unverifiable internal belief is granted supremacy in law over the material reality of other peoples' lives.

 

[Ziggurat]

A sufficiently creative mind might be able to come up with a quantitative variable for the x-axis. Off the top of my head, live gametes produced over a 66 year period would end up being bimodal on a log scale, if you only include subjects which produce at least one.

I suspect that distribution for males and females may not overlap except at the zero mark. So yeah, it would be bimodal, but without an overlap that still ends up as binary.

 

[lobosrul5]

It's not even that - for the most part, nobody generally denies that they feel like they are whatever gender they have chosen. With some exceptions where most people think the person is lying* we pretty much accept that they feel however the hell they feel.

What is being denied is that their feelings - their belief - makes them a different sex, or that their feelings - their belief - is more important than sex.

There is no other topic in the developed world where a person's unverifiable internal belief is granted supremacy in law over the material reality of other peoples' lives.

Sure we do. Why can a pharmacist legally decide not to fill prescription for Mifepristone? Because he believes it would make Jesus mad at him (or something similar).

 

[Myriad]

Being generous, I'd opine that most don't "change" their gender, so much as come to terms with it, or face that they never thought they were what others told them they were. I could be on board with that. "Changing genders" makes it sound like a recreational choice.

Though people don't usually think about such nuances, the original trans narrative from a few decades ago was that transitioning meant changing ones gender expression to match ones innate experienced gender.

I think that's still primarily true, but it seems there are more exceptions now. For instance, a person self-described as agender or non-binary is choosing not to express a gender to the extent manageable, but is that because they don't feel any gender internally, or because they do but choose not to express it? Probably some of each, case by case.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rowling all but admits to being a TERF in her manifesto. I mean, whether or not you find this perspective objectionable is a matter of opinion, but it seems rather unambiguous that Rowling's position is textbook TERF, relying heavily on biological essentialism.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly you're asking about. Rowling has been quite vocal in opposing the common demands of the modern transgender rights movement. Whether or not that's reasonable or makes her a reactionary is again a matter of opinion, but don't play dumb and pretend you don't understand where the root of the complaint lies.

Anyway, you can read her own words on the subject here:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

I see nothing in Rowling's post that makes it "TERFy"; I see nothing at all that even remotely resembles Rowling "all but admitting" to being a TERF. And I certainly see nothing that comes anywhere near the level of NAZI.

How about some specifics? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you believe justifies labeling them with vitriol that stands a reasonable chance of inciting violence against them? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you feel excuses the threats of violence and sexual assault that they have endured?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I imagine Judith Butler is aware. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss such claims as being rooted in ignorance just because you don't agree with them.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2021/oct/23/judith-butler-gender-ideology-backlash

An op-ed that talks at length about the role that reactionary backlashes, in this case specifically reactionary panic about gender norms, plays in radicalizing populations into fascist positions.

Yeah, you should maybe consider some nuance. I would agree that a fair bit of right wing endeavors fit that description.

On the other hand, however, the views of liberal gender critical females and their male allies absolutely do NOT fit into that description.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Like I said, it's one thing to disagree and another to pretend that the insults are entirely baseless.

And it's yet another thing to pretend that one's insults have supporting evidence in order to justify your own hatred, prejudice, and support for violence and threats of violence directed at people you disagree with.

 

[lobosrul5]

I see nothing in Rowling's post that makes it "TERFy"; I see nothing at all that even remotely resembles Rowling "all but admitting" to being a TERF. And I certainly see nothing that comes anywhere near the level of NAZI.

How about some specifics? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you believe justifies labeling them with vitriol that stands a reasonable chance of inciting violence against them? What SPECIFICALLY does Rowling say that you feel excuses the threats of violence and sexual assault that they have endured?

TERF stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

Is JKR not a feminist? Is she not for trans-exclusionary policies?

Maybe she isn't radical enough???

Note: I am not arguing thats its correct to call her a Nazi.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I've had a hard time understanding what's commonly believed in the trans community, especially when everything seemed so fluid for a while. Googling for biology/sociology distinctions a few weeks ago, I came across a thread on subreddit MtF titled, "No trans person believes you can change biological sex, but sex and gender are two different things."

The top reply inverts this:

It has been a controversial opinion when I talked about it in the past, but my understanding is that it's the complete opposite (edit: referring to your post title). You can't change your gender, since it's innate to you. You can only discover it (or them, in some cases), especially when it doesn't match your assigned one.
Sex, on the other hand, can be changed, at least many aspects of it, since it is, to a large extent, an accumulation of physical and endocrinological characteristics.

Commenters go on to talk about how the average person and cis people are ignorant of human biology/endocrinology.

I'm not at all surprised that they denigrate people who don't accept their faith as being ignorant.

On the other hand, evolutionary biologists, livestock owners, animal breeders, zoologists, and anyone who understands how reproduction works seems to have a significantly better grasp of the difference between actual sex and the visual indicators of sex... as well as an understanding that a wax apple is not an actual apple, no matter how convincingly crafted it is.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Sure we do. Why can a pharmacist legally decide not to fill prescription for Mifepristone? Because he believes it would make Jesus mad at him (or something similar).

Fair point. I think there's a bit of a distinction, but that's based on my personal views and priorities, and the breadth of impact I think is on the scales. But you are correct, that this is also an area where a person's belief is allowed to override the existing rights of others.

Interestingly... both of these are situations where it is the material reality of females that is being tossed aside.

 

[Emily's Cat]

TERF stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminist".

Is JKR not a feminist? Is she not for trans-exclusionary policies?

Maybe she isn't radical enough???

Note: I am not arguing thats its correct to call her a Nazi.

JKR is a feminist, yes. They are not a radical feminist in any fashion. Additionally, they aren't even truly trans exclusionary. JKR has on multiple occasions expressed considerable support for inclusion of transgender people - just not in ALL situations.

JKR is a sometimes-male-exclusive classical feminist.

Which, by the way, is what the vast majority of gender critical females are. I'm not a radical feminist. And I am not trans exclusive, I'm male exclusive. And even then, I'm only male exclusive in specific situations where sex is relevant and has a genuine impact on the people involved.

 

[Myriad]

"TERF" has become one of those words for which the vast majority of occurrences can be replaced with a snarling sound without loss of meaning or specificity.

 

[d4m10n]

Maybe she isn't radical enough???

Radical feminism^WP does not mean extreme feminism, it is a term of art by which one group of feminists assert their ideological and methodological differences from other schools of thought within feminism.

ETA: Scroll down to this part of the wiki for a good explainer on how RF was split between TERF and TIRF segments.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

JKR is a feminist, yes. They are not a radical feminist in any fashion. Additionally, they aren't even truly trans exclusionary. JKR has on multiple occasions expressed considerable support for inclusion of transgender people - just not in ALL situations.

JKR is a sometimes-male-exclusive classical feminist.

Which, by the way, is what the vast majority of gender critical females are. I'm not a radical feminist. And I am not trans exclusive, I'm male exclusive. And even then, I'm only male exclusive in specific situations where sex is relevant and has a genuine impact on the people involved.

Someone like Rowling is probably never going to self-describe as a TERF, because for whatever reason TERFs consider this useful and descriptive term to be a slur. Not that the exact handle really matters, however they describe themselves is still going to be met with derision by some audiences and acclaim by others, be it TERF or Gender Critical or whatever other name they cook up.

Feminists who interpret feminist principles in a way that concludes in trans exclusion are always going to be at odds with their trans inclusive feminist counterparts. Rowling's writing and reasoning is quite clearly one of a TERF.

 

[d4m10n]

I suspect that distribution for males and females may not overlap except at the zero mark. So yeah, it would be bimodal, but without an overlap that still ends up as binary.

I'd expect to see overlap on the low end, among individuals of both sexes who are effectively but not entirely infertile. That's just a guess, though, I don't have the relevant DSDs readily to hand.

Is there a reason that it might be considered a statistical faux pas to plot the number of fruit produced in this way?

That depends on what you are trying to do. If, for example, you are trying to show that a regulation on "fruit produced each season" ought to take type of fruit tree into account, it might be useful to show all the trees which are covered by the regulation on a single graph. Probably best not to pretend like you are dealing with a single output variable, though, if you can draw different colored lines for each distribution.

Ask yourself: Why would it produce two peaks? Why would you have two means in that distribution?

Because you are, in fact, measuring two distinct phenomenon (spermatozoa, ova) under the same name (gametes). I was hoping to take mumblethrax along for this ride here, but they declined the price of admission, which is to commit to labeling one's axes before making any inferences about the hypothetical results of the graph.

 

[theprestige]

Is JKR not a feminist? Is she not for trans-exclusionary policies?

She's for transsexual-exclusionary policies. She's against transgender-exclusionary policies.

I think the clearer that distinction becomes, the more people will take the same view.

 

[lobosrul5]

She's for transsexual-exclusionary policies. She's against transgender-inclusionary policies.

I think the clearer that distinction becomes, the more people will take the same view.

So, she's a TERF, not a TIRF. Or at least shes a TEF. Although after reading d4m10n's link I'd say she is radical, just not extremist.

I'm also probably more of a TERF than a TIRF.

 

[Brainster]

Transwoman wins elite women's mountain bike race by over 4 minutes; would have lost men's division by over an hour.

Kudos to the second-place rider, who was about as gracious as she could be:

"Rather than sharing my personal opinions about the UCI rule, I think it’s most important to recognize that all athletes, no matter how they identify, should have a space to compete and race. Additionally, underneath all helmets is a face and a person who deserves respect, dignity and a safe space to ride bikes."

“In the future, I feel a separate category is appropriate but event promoters are also learning what is best to preserve both female cycling while also creating an inclusive space for all to ride. These things take both time and grace to resolve."

Of course quite a few commenters noted that there is indeed a place for Austin to ride; it's called the men's division.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'd expect to see overlap on the low end, among individuals of both sexes who are effectively but not entirely infertile. That's just a guess, though, I don't have the relevant DSDs readily to hand.

That depends on what you are trying to do. If, for example, you are trying to show that a regulation on "fruit produced each season" ought to take type of fruit tree into account, it might be useful to show all the trees which are covered by the regulation on a single graph. Probably best not to pretend like you are dealing with a single output variable, though, if you can draw different colored lines for each distribution.

Because you are, in fact, measuring two distinct phenomenon (spermatozoa, ova) under the same name (gametes). I was hoping to take mumblethrax along for this ride here, but they declined the price of admission, which is to commit to labeling one's axes before making any inferences about the hypothetical results of the graph.

 

[Trausti]

Transwoman wins elite women's by over 4 minutes; would have lost men's division by over an hour.

Kudos to the second-place rider, who was about as gracious as she could be:



Of course quite a few commenters noted that there is indeed a place for Austin to ride; it's called the men's division.

We are much too kind. Guys who do this are jerks. They need to be called out as such.