• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
No idea. Don't recall using that phrase here.
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
If it pleases your sensibilities I'm going to ask once again for a specific example of what it looks like for someone to experience the valid lived condition of transgender identity without suffering any dysphoria. I am genuinely and intensely curious for at least one case study here.
Click to expand...

You're really gonna try to build a moral high ground on the semantics between "valid lived condition" and "lived in?"

Fine. What the **** is a "valid lived condition" since think having to directly quoted is so goddamn clever.
 
Emily's Cat said:
:boxedin: The reality is that we do expect men and women to act certain ways.
Click to expand...

I've never suggested otherwise. I just don't think any of us are obligated to encourage and strengthen those stereotypes so one subgroup can use them ironically or non-traditionally.

You're not sticking it gender roles by being a man and wearing heels and dress to "identify" as a woman, your encouraging those stereotypes.
 
mumblethrax said:
But nobody seems to take offense to the word transwoman. They take offense to the word ciswoman.

Which is why I find it odd.
Click to expand...
Do you think transgender identified males should take offense at being called transwomen? That's the term they chose for themselves. Females did not choose "ciswoman" for ourselves - it was a name given to us by males, and which we are expected to embrace.

There's a world of difference between choosing a label for yourself... and being assigned a label by someone outside of your cohort. Especially when it comes hand-in-hand with the word that we previously used to describe ourselves being appropriated by a different group of people.

mumblethrax said:
I don't think 'relegated' is the word I would use to describe going from 100% to 99%. And women already were a subset of women. And also a subset of their sex.
Click to expand...

In what way are female humans a subset of the class of female humans?

This is like saying natural numbers are a subset of natural numbers. They aren't - they're the whole damned set! ALL natural number are included in the set of natural numbers... and ZERO irrational numbers are included in the set of natural numbers.

Kind of like how ZERO males are included in the class of females.
 
JoeMorgue said:
//Gut feeling//

I think that's gonna break down largely along the lines how common people think transgenderism actually is.

I think for some the "offense" is being expected to clarify something that is (in their view, I'm not saying it's right) a statistical anomaly.
Click to expand...
More like getting irritated at having to clarify that I'm talking about the 98% of cases where it's perfectly obvious. Especially when the 2% of cases are also perfectly obvious about 80% of the time.

Like, if a stranger walks up to a transman, and asks "Are you a transman or a cisman", the transman is likely to take that as a compliment - as affirmation that they're passing moderately well. It means that they no longer look so much like an average female that people make assumptions.

On the other hand, if a stranger walks up to you and asks "Are you a transman or a cisman"... that's not really a compliment. It's not necessarily an insult, but it sure as hell is an indication that somehow you aren't sufficiently male enough for everyone to just know that you're male. As if you're androgynous and ambiguous, as if you *might* be a female and they really can't tell for sure.

It's a compliment for an impersonator to be mistaken for the real thing; it's not a compliment for the real thing to be mistaken for an impersonator.

JoeMorgue said:
It's like someone getting mad at you at a coin toss because you only accounted for heads and tails and not "lands perfectly balanced on the edge."

(Insert "Is sexuality a coin toss or a d20?" metaphor here as needed)
Click to expand...

Coin Toss. But sometimes it spins a while before it finally falls over.
 
Last edited:
Emily's Cat said:
Do you think transgender identified males should take offense at being called transwomen? That's the term they chose for themselves. Females did not choose "ciswoman" for ourselves - it was a name given to us by males, and which we are expected to embrace.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying the word transgender/transwoman should be offensive to the women who think this way.

In what way are female humans a subset of the class of female humans?
Click to expand...
Because all sets are subsets of themselves.

This is like saying natural numbers are a subset of natural numbers.
Click to expand...
It is. Very much so. And, of course, they are.
 
Last edited:
I think when we're bringing Aleph-Null and Cantor's Rule of Diagonal into the discussion to count genders we've gone too far.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I've never suggested otherwise. I just don't think any of us are obligated to encourage and strengthen those stereotypes so one subgroup can use them ironically or non-traditionally.

You're not sticking it gender roles by being a man and wearing heels and dress to "identify" as a woman, your encouraging those stereotypes.
Click to expand...

On this, we agree completely.

ETA: Although I do still give some wiggle room to transgender people. There's a reality involved where if a male dresses like a male, it's going to be 100% impossible for them to pass as a woman - and in the past, passing was the objective. I still think it's a reasonable objective. That said... there are certainly some transwomen who really over-do it, and they dress like bimbos and porn stars rather than just dressing like a typical female. There are several that do a fine job of presenting in female attire without being a bit insulting. Much as I might disagree with their view on several issues, Rachel Levine does a good job of dressing in female attire in away that is professional and appropriate.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
So you just aren't responsible for anything you say because you didn't think of it yourself?
Click to expand...
When I'm asking someone (LJ) to unpack a phrase that they personally coined, no, I'm not responsible for unpacking it. Everyone gets to cope with their own luggage, FFS.
 
mumblethrax said:
You're misunderstanding me. I'm saying the word transgender/transwoman should be offensive to the women who think this way.


Because all sets are subsets of themselves.


It is. Very much so. And, of course, they are.
Click to expand...

Fine. Whatever. Do you think men should be entitled to cross sex segregation boundaries based on their expressed desire to do so?

Why or why not?
 
theprestige said:
Fine. Whatever. Do you think men should be entitled to cross sex segregation boundaries based on their expressed desire to do so?
Click to expand...
Men? No. Transwomen? In some cases. Depends on the boundary in question, and whether it was even justified in the first place.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Please flesh this out. Which women who think what way?
Click to expand...
That transwomen implies males can be women.

Transwomen does that. Ciswomen doesn't, at least not directly.

Ciswomen just says women (as you understand the word) are women (as you understand the word).

It seems like people are objecting to the wrong word.
 
d4m10n said:
Why not ask the fellow who coined the phrase?
Click to expand...

"Valid lived condition" is the motte, "transwomen are women" is the bailey. Find a reasonably anodyne statement about trangenders, redefine the terms a bit, and we have apparently proved X=Y logically. Condition is a bit of a giveaway, as LJ would never admit that being trans is a medical "condition" needing treatment (other than gender-affirming treatment). And valid is the slippery part, because we switch from "gender dysphoria happens to people" to "those with gender dysphoria are right about their real gender."
 
I'm not objecting I'm just still confused.

1. Are transwomen exactly the same as ciswomen or a subcategory of them?
2. If transwomen aren't exactly the same as ciswomen what variable makes them different?
3. What variable makes a transwoman different from a cisman if we don't accept a purely internal sense of identity (or the same thing reworded a billion times) as an answer?
4. Going "It's complicated!" isn't an answer or clarification to any of that.
 
mumblethrax said:
In bathrooms...how did we tell who was a man and who was a woman up until this point?
Click to expand...

Because touch grass. The idea that society is full of perfectly passing transpeople and that it isn't fairly obvious in 99% of cases because secondary sexual characteristics like beards and body shape aren't that easy to just hide is rather silly.

I get 99% of the trans argument is posting pictures of post-alotofsurgeryandeffort transpeople with a glib "Oh so you're saying THIS person should have to use the other bathroom" but most trans people are nowhere near 100% passing.

If the transperson is so perfect at being trans you can't tell what are we even talking and if they aren't so perfect at being trans that you can tell your argument is self defeating.
 
JoeMorgue said:
If the transperson is so perfect at being trans you can't tell what are we even talking and if they aren't so perfect at being trans that you can tell your argument is self defeating.
Click to expand...
How is it self-defeating?

If they don't pass it seems to me that you have exactly the same options in either case.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom