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

[TurkeysGhost]

So yes, I'm just supposed to lie.

There's a reason why "brutal honesty" is a trait of ********. politeness is the social lubricant that makes the world go round.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's a reason why "brutal honesty" is a trait of ********. politeness is the social lubricant that makes the world go round.

That's ********. That's treating transpeople like children who can't handle there not being a Santa Clause.

Forget "misgendering" The absolute most dehumanizing thing you can do to another functioning adult is "I'm going to lie to you to spare your feelings."

 

[TurkeysGhost]

That's ********. That's treating transpeople like children who can't handle there not being a Santa Clause.

Forget "misgendering" The absolute most dehumanizing thing you can do to another functioning adult is "I'm going to lie to you to spare your feelings."

You were asking about yourself. I wouldn't presume you're rejection of the legitimacy of trans identity is universal. I don't feel as though I'm lying or coddling anyone in this regard, I sincerely believe them.

 

[theprestige]

The most thorougly gendered settings I can think of offhand are clothing stores and drag shows. In both cases, people can freely choose to perform gender expression at odds which what you'd expect when gender is a reliable proxy for sex. In the specific case of natal females who pass as men, you wouldn't even notice that's what's going on as you're browsing the aisles.

Sure. But my across the board argument is that gender does not matter for practical purposes in those settings. A dude puts on womanface for entertainment purposes, so what? A lady shops in the men's department, so what? There's no unanswered question of human rights there. There's no serious conflict between legitimate interest groups there.

That's what I mean, when I argue "across the board" that gender is irrelevant except as a proxy for sex.

"I should be allowed to shop in the ladies' department just because I want to!"

Sure thing, dude! Done and done!​

Versus

"I should be allowed to compete in women's sports just because I want to!"

Yeah no let's think this through.​

 

[Ziggurat]

It depends, do you (or society more broadly) treat men and women differently?

I'm not asking about what I currently do or what I would do. I'm asking what I should do. According to you, what difference should there be in how I treat these two people, if I'm trying to treat them how they want to be treated?

I mean, if you speak english then it seems like yes, because our language has gendered pronouns and other such gendered language. That's just one obvious example.

No ****, I specifically pointed out pronouns. But is there anything else?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm not asking about what I currently do or what I would do. I'm asking what I should do. According to you, what difference should there be in how I treat these two people, if I'm trying to treat them how they want to be treated?



No ****, I specifically pointed out pronouns. But is there anything else?

I think it's an open question how much our current society should segregate the genders, but if that's what we're going to do our treatment of trans people should be consistent with their expressed gender.

Don't ask me to defend strict gender segregation and gender roles as they exist, a lot of them are trash and probably ought to go.

 

[theprestige]

No, the journey is to being a woman (for social purposes).

Now if only someone could explain how anyone is supposed to know when one has arrived at that destination.

 

[d4m10n]

There's no unanswered question of human rights there. There's no serious conflict between legitimate interest groups there.

Okay, I think your position is clear to me now. Whenever there is a substantial conflict between interest groups (e.g. female athletes, natal male athletes who want to compete against female athletes) you will take the side of sex over gender as the deciding factor "across the board." This sort of makes you the anti-ACLU, since they take precisely the opposite position.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it's an open question how much our current society should segregate the genders,

*I* don't segregate anyone.

Don't ask me to defend strict gender segregation and gender roles as they exist, a lot of them are trash and probably ought to go.

I'm not asking you to defend either. I'm not holding anyone to any gender roles. And I've always maintained that there's no basis for gender segregation in any context.

What there is justification for is sex segregation in limited circumstances.

 

[theprestige]

It depends, do you (or society more broadly) treat men and women differently? Not even saying preferentially, but different at all?

The only time I treat men and women differently is when perpetuating certain social stereotypes that are generally regressive and derogatory. I'm trying to get better about it. I'm sure Rachel Levine doesn't want me saying that high government office is the province of men, and that her place is barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen making me a sandwich.

One place where society more broadly treats men and women differently (and preferentially) is when recognizing women's achievements in equity and inclusion. First woman astronaut, first woman CEO, etc. Which brings us back to Rachel Levine being touted as the first female to hold that particular high government office.

 

[Emily's Cat]

In the more contentious cases (say, athletics) it's not really a difficulty.

In bathrooms...how did we tell who was a man and who was a woman up until this point?

You haven't really provided an answer. You've made somewhat vague gestures toward an answer, but they're extremely open to interpretation.

Can you please provide your personal view on how we distinguish between a transwoman and a man, in a general way?

 

[theprestige]

I think it's an open question how much our current society should segregate the genders, but if that's what we're going to do our treatment of trans people should be consistent with their expressed gender.

Can you give us a concrete example? What does it mean to you to treat a woman consistent with their expressed gender? When you see a male who you believe is ID'ing as a woman, what steps do you take to treat them consistent with their expressed gender?

Do you hold the door for them, when you wouldn't for a man? Offer to carry their groceries, when you wouldn't for a man? Offer to pay them 75 cents on the dollar, for any work you'd like them to do?

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

Spot on. I've tried to make this clear before, and it tends to get ignored or twisted around in some fashion.

If a transgender person passes very well... nobody is going to notice their presence as being in any way out of place. They will blend in, and nobody at all is going to feel uncomfortable.

If a transgender person does not pass... then they will be perceived as their actual sex by pretty much everyone. And a lot of those people - both male and female - will be uncomfortable with their presence in certain situations. In some situations, their presence will produce a feeling of threat and intimidation.

If we are forced to accept non-passing transgender people as if we could not tell their actual sex... then we have created a gigantic gaping loophole that is visible from space, and predators WILL exploit that loophole to do real harm.

It turns out that the harm is not evenly distributed by sex, and that significantly more harm befalls female humans than befalls male humans. And since the pushiest and most demanding cohort of transgender people happens to be males who do not pass well at all... I think opposition by females to fiat self-id is a very reasonable position to take.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Can you give us a concrete example? What does it mean to you to treat a woman consistent with their expressed gender? When you see a male who you believe is ID'ing as a woman, what steps do you take to treat them consistent with their expressed gender?

Do you hold the door for them, when you wouldn't for a man? Offer to carry their groceries, when you wouldn't for a man? Offer to pay them 75 cents on the dollar, for any work you'd like them to do?

You're correct to point out that many historical forms of gender discrimination have been found to be unethical and unlawful (at least in the US).

But we still have some protected gender segregation. Restrooms are one such example. Language is still quite gender specific as well (for better or worse).

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Spot on. I've tried to make this clear before, and it tends to get ignored or twisted around in some fashion.

If a transgender person passes very well... nobody is going to notice their presence as being in any way out of place. They will blend in, and nobody at all is going to feel uncomfortable.

If a transgender person does not pass... then they will be perceived as their actual sex by pretty much everyone. And a lot of those people - both male and female - will be uncomfortable with their presence in certain situations. In some situations, their presence will produce a feeling of threat and intimidation.

If we are forced to accept non-passing transgender people as if we could not tell their actual sex... then we have created a gigantic gaping loophole that is visible from space, and predators WILL exploit that loophole to do real harm.

It turns out that the harm is not evenly distributed by sex, and that significantly more harm befalls female humans than befalls male humans. And since the pushiest and most demanding cohort of transgender people happens to be males who do not pass well at all... I think opposition by females to fiat self-id is a very reasonable position to take.

This also applies to cis people who are present outside the "normal" gender expectation, as shown by the examples of insufficiently femme cis women being confronted in toilets or other such gender segregated spaces.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Fair enough. Like I'd said earlier on in this thread, it seems to me --- not off of any expertise I myself bring to the table, but merely basis a quick read of some of the things that I've seen others say here! --- that there are three separate arguments, whether for or against, as far as the transwomen-in-sports question:

(a) The question of fairness ---- of which, I'd say, this safety issue is a subset; or, of course, you can treat it as a separate and fourth argument, that's fine too;

(b) The matter of inclusion; and

(c) What the paying public is willing to pay to watch.


What I suggested there addresses only the middle thing, the inclusion argument. Agreed, even should it be shown that the plea for inclusion is a sincere one and not a sham, even then that isn't the end of the whole question, about whether transwomen should get to compete in women's categories, not by a long shot.

Okay, and what I'm saying is that for all rational intents, you really only have TWO items: (a) and (c). Item (b) is completely and entirely unverifiable and easily exploitable in ways that make it a non-contended for consideration. Or perhaps, I will say that if someone argues for (b) while dismissing the actual impact they're doing so from a position of bad faith.

I also think that (a) and (c) cannot reasonably be pried apart and treated as discrete things. I think (c) is dependent upon (a). If the game is not fair, I think viewership would rapidly drop to nonexistent. It would very rapidly turn into a venue for sadistic schadenfreude, not sport.

 

[Ziggurat]

But we still have some protected gender segregation. Restrooms are one such example.

We still have gender segregation?

No. Gender segregation is a recent innovation, where it has replaced sex segregation.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No. Trans women are male and cis women are female. (Thought you knew that was my position)

I'm challenging the language use.

Here's why.

By framing the prefix as an adjective, you are presenting the object of the adjective as being a valid representation of the thing in question. By using "trans woman" with the space, you are implicitly accepting and propagating the notion that males who identify psychologically as an alternative gender are legitimately and accurately described as "women". It directly implies that these males are women - just like any female is a woman. It creates the implicit message that transgender identified males ARE LITERALLY synonymous with females in all ways.

I'm not all that much a fan of the term "transwoman" without the space, but linguistically, the prefix acts to clarify that the compound noun being used does not actually represent someone who is synonymous to the term "woman". The trans- prefix adds clarity that the modified noun is in essence a misnomer.

There are many cases where I will use the term "transwoman". Usually it's because I simply get tired of writing out that many words, especially when I'm dealing with a group of people who already know my views and will not be inadvertently misled into a false conclusion. And many times, I use it because it's polite to do so - and when the topic is not directly discussing the policy impacts, courtesy is a reasonable default.

I have become less accommodating with time. Pronouns, as theprestige noted, are the thin end of the wedge. And by accepting misleading language into general usage, we are complicit in obscuring material reality and reifying a subjective aspect of faith.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Instead, do a comprehensive sampling thing down at the humblest levels of sports participation, both amateur sports and professional sports as well, right down to the very basic level at which someone who has a notion of competing might start out competing. Do that, and don't worry about whether they're winning or losing anything, just look at whether or not substantial numbers of transmen are competing in men's categories. If the answer is Yes, then that's verification, right there, that in the aggregate the inclusion plea is sincere. If not, then we have evidence that, in aggregate, the inclusion plea is a lie.

Starting at puberty, they won't be - because pretty much as soon as puberty begins, females become uncompetitive against males.

You might argue that we should look at the number of transmen that try out for male sports, even if they don't actually make the cut. And in an ideal world, sure, that's conceptually feasible.

But it's like trying to figure out how many males would like to play on the male basketball team, and inferring that only those who try out actually want to play. It's misleading - there are many males who would love to play basketball... but they also know that they are not good enough to make the team. And because they know that they will not make the team, they do not try out.

Look - I would absolutely love to go colonize Mars. Hell, I would abandon my spouse and all of my family if I were given that option. But... reality is a thing. I'm nearly 50, I'm out of shape, and I'm epileptic. No matter how much I want to colonize Mars, nobody in their right mind is going to give me the thumbs up to get on that ship. It's never going to happen.

Females - regardless of how they identify - are pretty well aware that in almost all cases, we cannot compete against males once we've started puberty. We know we won't make the cut on a male team. So... I sincerely doubt than many transmen even bother to try out.

To support this hypothesis, there have been several cases of openly transgender identified females who have declined to take testosterone, because it would disqualify them from the female team. It's acknowledged that they would be excluded from the female team because they're taking a performance enhancing substance... but that substance would be insufficient to make them competitive against males.

 

[mumblethrax]

By framing the prefix as an adjective, you are presenting the object of the adjective as being a valid representation of the thing in question.

Accidents are unfortunate by their nature. We nevertheless have happy accidents.

A quiche is an egg tart by definition. We nevertheless have vegan quiches.

I think perhaps language doesn't work the way you think it does.