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

[Emily's Cat]

BTW, I don't think this is true. DSM 5 has a section on "transvestic disorder", but I don't see the word "transvestite" anywhere. And there is a distinction, and it's not trivial. Transvestic disorder involves specifically a sexual arousal from cross-dressing. A transvestite might or might not experience sexual arousal from cross-dressing. So transvestites don't necessarily have transvestic disorder.

Nah - a transvestite still gets sexual arousal or gratification from cross-dressing. It just doesn't rise to the level of a disorder.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Hence my conclusion that for all practical purposes, transgenderism is really transsexualism.

I disagree - transgenderism is really either transsexualism (a genuine self-perception disorder that drives a person to want to *be* the opposite sex) or transvesticism (a desire to attain sexual arousal or gratification from cross-dressing invading the intimate spaces of the opposite sex)

 

[Emily's Cat]

The obvious variable is the expressed self-identity of the person involved.

I started to just say "baloney", then decided I needed to add more to that.

Obviously there must be more to it than just "expressed self-identity". Because there are umpteen thousand different aspects of "expressed self-identity" that are routinely ignored by other people - and are frequently outright DENIED by other people.

As an example, I've now lost track of how many people on this site have the expressed self-identity of being politically neutral or moderate liberals... who have been DENIED their identity by other people who feel justified in LABELING them as "right wing".

Or an even more salient example, the several of us in this thread who have the expressed self0identity of being supportive of both transgender people and females, and who sincerely wish to find a balance between those two conflicting goals... and who have been DENIED that identity by those who LABEL us as "terfs" and "transphobes" and "bigots" and all sorts of other vile and denigrating terms.

So you're wrong - "expressed self-identity" is CLEARLY insufficient.

 

[d4m10n]

Or an even more salient example, the several of us in this thread who have the expressed self-identity of being supportive of both transgender people and females, and who sincerely wish to find a balance between those two conflicting goals... and who have been DENIED that identity by those who LABEL us as "terfs" and "transphobes" and "bigots" and all sorts of other vile and denigrating terms.

Self-identity is sacrosanct unless you're a member of the reviled out-group, in which case it is morally acceptable (if not obligatory) to STOMP TERFs even if they do not self-identify as such.

 

[Ziggurat]

There isn't a reliable way to casually distinguish between the two.

That qualifier wasn't part of Emily's Cat's question.

There also isn't a reliable way to casually distinguish between a transman and a man.

But there is a way to reliably distinguish between a transman and a man. It may not be casual (whatever that even means), but again, that qualifier wasn't part of Emily's Cat's question.

 

[d4m10n]

But there is a way to reliably distinguish between a transman and a man.

I've heard that some Grindr enjoyers have discovered this method to their own surprise and occasional chagrin.

 

[mumblethrax]

That qualifier wasn't part of Emily's Cat's question.

It was implicitly. If we're talking about a bathroom setting, there's nothing else to go on.

But there is a way to reliably distinguish between a transman and a man. It may not be casual (whatever that even means), but again, that qualifier wasn't part of Emily's Cat's question.

It means casual. As in not formal.

 

[Paul2]

Sex is a matter biological. Gender is all of the social, cultural, psychological attachments to sex.

Which side of that razor do you think "the law" falls on?

Either. You yourself said that the law could be written such that it uses the biological/gamete definition of sex.

What else did/could you mean by which side of the razor?

 

[mumblethrax]

Either. You yourself said that the law could be written such that it uses the biological/gamete definition of sex.

What else did/could you mean by which side of the razor?

I'm not talking about the content of the law. I mean the law itself.

 

[theprestige]

I disagree - transgenderism is really either transsexualism (a genuine self-perception disorder that drives a person to want to *be* the opposite sex) or transvesticism (a desire to attain sexual arousal or gratification from cross-dressing invading the intimate spaces of the opposite sex)

I get what you mean, but still, for practical purposes... Wanting to compete in women's sports and be housed in women's prisons is clearly a case of wanting to "be" the opposite sex in practice. We don't have to inquire into the petitioner's mental state or emotional health to recognize that the practical outcome of their petition is the transcending of sex segregation boundaries. It is, in effect, trans-sexual.

---

If we can stipulate that "transgender" does not necessarily refer to the mental disorder of gender dysphoria*, then we can stipulate that "transsexual" does not necessarily refer to the mental disorder of transsexualism. Like Orwell said about pacifism being objectively pro-fascist, I'm saying that trans rights activism is objectively pro-transsexualism.

That's the outcome, even if the trans-identifying activists themselves aren't clinically transsexual.**

---
*Perhaps some transgender identities carry no more psychological freight than a recreational fursona does.

**They're probably clinically something, though. This deep desire to be seen as the opposite sex, treated as the opposite sex, is either a product of disordered thinking, or is bound to produce disordered thinking, or both.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not talking about the content of the law. I mean the law itself.

Feels like we're treading into koan territory here.

What is the sound of the law itself, once we've muted the content thereof?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I agree that a gay person can know this about themselves, but how can you, the outside observer, know? They could just be lying. hell, many gay people were lying, quite convincingly for years, claiming to be straight back in the closeted days. Gay people did date, marry, have sex with, and have children with women. Nothing stops them from doing so other than their own sense of self identity and knowing their own mind.

We have the ability to actually observe and measure sexual arousal in response to visual stimulus in the brain. While it might not be practical to do so on everyone, it's at least theoretically possible for a male who claims to be gay, but who is married to a female, has children, and has never been known to interact with another male in a sexual way... to go through testing and actually demonstrate that they are sexually aroused by males.

To the best of my knowledge, we don't have the ability to observe neurological phenomenon that demonstrate that a person genuinely identifies as transgender. I don't even think we have a concrete enough definition of what transgender means to be able to try to find it.

That said - there was a small scale study a year or two back that looked exclusively at androphilic males who had clinically diagnosed severe gender dysphoria that began in early childhood - the classic "HSTS Transsexual". In those specific cases, they observed activity in the part of the brain associated with self-perception, that indicated the individual really did have a discordant perception of their own bodies. This is the same part of the brain that is mis-activated in people with eating disorders, particularly anorexia - their brains actually perceive themself to be overweight. But in that situation, we recognize that their brain is wrong, and we address the brain rather than trying to transform the body to align with the brain's misperception.

 

[mumblethrax]

Feels like we're treading into koan territory here.

What is the sound of the law itself, once we've muted the content thereof?

I really don't think there's anything difficult or profound about saying the law is a social institution.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Kinda seems like there's a very straightforward definition: someone who identifies with the gender opposite their sex.

What does that actually mean though?

It's just words. It's words that are tautological, and that have no actual comprehensible meaning. It's an article of faith. It makes just as much sense as a devout christian sincerely explaining their "personal relationship with god".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender is a social construct, you can't take out other people's perception.

That's a solid argument for why I should use the pronoun "he" when referencing Eddie Izzard.

 

[mumblethrax]

How about "throughout the entire lives of every single person posting on ISF... they have been different things"? Does that work for you? Do we really have to incorporate everything back to Charlemagne?

I think if the situation is exactly the opposite of what someone claims it is, that's worth mentioning.

 

[d4m10n]

I really don't think there's anything difficult or profound about saying the law is a social institution.

Individual laws can be written with either sex or gender in mind, or both, or neither.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

Gender is the same thing as sex except when it is except when it isn't except when it is except stop asking you're being a bigot.

Again I'm doing being trapped by terms. Variable A is biological differences that objectively exist and can't be changed just by fiat and Variable B are expectations put on us by society. There is no third variable.

Variable A is whether your like it or not and Variable B is something we are not behold to.

You have my sympathy. The language barrier in this discussion is monumental. It's nearly impossible to discuss the policy implications when we can't even get a meaningful definition of the fundamental concepts.

 

[Emily's Cat]

If you're asking why the majority should not needlessly discriminate against the minority.. I dunno, vague liberal values? Individual liberty, that kind of thing. I'm not an ethicist.

Why should the minority be granted the privilege of discriminating against a majority, in a way that continues and reinforces the pre-existing discrimination and oppression that we've been trying to get out of for over a century?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Generally speaking, I'd say you should treat people how they want to be treated, allow them to express their identity, and generally respect that they best know their own mind/identity unless you have a compelling reason not to.

I want to be treated as a female adult human being, with access to female-only spaces that are free from penises. I want you to trust that I know my own mind best, and that I am expressing a non-discriminatory view that is respectful of the vulnerabilities of females.