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

[mumblethrax]

No, it wasn't implicit in my question. You have incorrectly inferred the presence of something I did not imply.

Yes, it was. We have nothing but casual observation to go by in a bathroom setting.

 

[d4m10n]

The law can recognize racial disparities or racial discrimination without having to put a "Race" field on your birth certificate.

The law cannot take cognizance of racial disparity without a coherent definition of race. Possibly self-i.d. is enough since transracial folks are relatively rare at the moment, but even with self-i.d. you're relying on conceptually coherent categories rooted in linguistic usage.

Sent from my Emacs Emulator using Tapatalk

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

You're more generous than I am. I think there are many cases where the individual doesn't want to *be* the opposite sex in practice. They want to *get off on* pretending to be the other sex, they want to *get off on* invading female spaces and making females uncomfortable. If they wanted to *be* the opposite sex, they wouldn't be so fond of fondling their erect phalluses on camera while standing in the female restroom while opining about what an incredibly rush it is and what a super euphoria boner they have about being in the female restroom.

Not all of them, certainly. But enough to make the internet a very scary place sometimes, and to make a whole lot of females really leery of public toilets.

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.

I have no disagreement with that.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is there anything else I'm missing? Anywhere else in society where sex segregation matters, that can't be resolved by a doctor's note or a suitably-regulated government ID?

Fairly easily solved... but I would say hospital and mental health institutions, nursing homes, and similar - where the resident/patient is dependent on someone else for ADLs or for intimate care.

 

[mumblethrax]

The law cannot take cognizance of racial disparity without a coherent definition of race.

It can. Which is fortunate, because there is no coherent definition of race.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think there's much distinction, and it's largely redundant for the law to recognize sex and gender as distinct categories.

You know that's like the entire premise of this thread, right? And that at present, we have cases where the law is conflating the two and granting priority to gender identity over sex?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I disagree emphatically.

Sometimes the law should recognize sex, for example, when deciding whether mammograms ought to be a covered benefit for individuals who've opted into the ACA marketplace. One sex really is at quite significantly greater risk than the other for the conditions which mammograms are designed to uncover.

Sometimes the law should recognize gender, as when deciding which United States Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (PHSCC) uniform Rachel Levine ought to use when performing public facing duties. She uses the women's uniform, because gender expression is part and parcel of the uniform experience and has been since my grandparents met during WWII.

Sent from my Declasse Draugur using Tapatalk

I disagree on the latter - I would say that the law should be entirely silent when it comes to gender, and that ANY person in the PHSCC should be entitled to where whichever uniform style they prefer, so long as they adhere to an accepted variant of the uniform. ANY male should be allowed to wear a skirt, and ANY female should be allowed to wear trousers - what they feel like on the inside should be completely irrelevant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is not meaningful response.

Have you ever actually read 1984? If not, I really do recommend it. An understanding of the content of that book would make my statement meaningful.

It's not a very long book. You should be able to read it over the course of a weekend without breaking a sweat.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A bit hard to answer, because I'm not particularly aware that I'm doing it--it's largely a matter of intuition. Clothing, hairstyle, makeup, face, body type, etc., I guess.

What does clothing, hairstyle, or makeup have to do with sex?

How would a kid in an old Arnold Schwarzenegger movie describe the difference?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I am not asking about the contents of the law.

I am asking about the law itself.

Your distinction doesn't make any sense to me. Please use more words and explain what you mean here.

 

[mumblethrax]

You know that's like the entire premise of this thread, right?

I don't think it is. This thread seems primarily concerned with the reality of the situation.

And that at present, we have cases where the law is conflating the two and granting priority to gender identity over sex?

How would a sharp distinction in law resolve this problem?

 

[mumblethrax]

Your distinction doesn't make any sense to me. Please use more words and explain what you mean here.

Is the law itself a social arrangement, or a biological one?

 

[mumblethrax]

Have you ever actually read 1984?

Yes.

That doesn't make what you wrote a meaningful response.

 

[d4m10n]

It can. Which is fortunate, because there is no coherent definition of race.

I don't think what you're saying makes any sense, in terms of internal coherence. Without a coherent definition of A or Not-A we cannot measure group differences between the two. And that's the simplest possible scenario.

Sent from my F-14 Tomcat using Tapatalk

 

[mumblethrax]

What does clothing, hairstyle, or makeup have to do with sex?

To the extent that they express gender, and most people have a gender identity that matches their sex, they're a relatively reliable indicator of sex.

 

[mumblethrax]

I don't think what you're saying makes any sense, in terms of internal coherence. Without a coherent definition of A or Not-A we cannot measure group differences between the two. And that's the simplest possible scenario.

I'm taking coherent to mean logically consistent. If you, for example, divide people by race according to how they self-identity, you're deferring to a necessarily incoherent subjective understanding. You can nevertheless divide people into groups on that basis.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm taking coherent to mean logically consistent. If you, for example, divide people by race according to how they self-identity, you're deferring to a necessarily incoherent subjective understanding. You can nevertheless divide people into groups on that basis.

You can divide people into groups based on how they self-identify, but at risk of losing precision.

Consider the relatively well-defined category of ADOS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Descendants_of_Slavery

Most African Americans assume (correctly) that they are in that category. Many others are as well, though, but they just don't know it. Their ancestors have, in the academic jargon, "passed into whiteness."

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[d4m10n]

To the extent that they express gender, and most people have a gender identity that matches their sex, they're a relatively reliable indicator of sex.

I happen to know a number of cisgender lesbians who dress like me: trousers, trainers, & t-shirts. No one mistakes them for men, though.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[mumblethrax]

I happen to know a number of cisgender lesbians who dress like me: trousers, trainers, & t-shirts. No one mistakes them for men, though.

Which is why I also listed face and body type.

 

[mumblethrax]

Consider the relatively well-defined category of ADOS

Why? That has little to do with how we measure, or produce, racial disparity.