Well I mean this entire discussion is a bunch of people talking about trans people and the last time an actual trans person was in the thread she told us we were all wrong and transphobes so...
Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13
- Thread starter Samson
- Start date
- Status
Well I mean this entire discussion is a bunch of people talking about trans people and the last time an actual trans person was in the thread she told us we were all wrong and transphobes so...
gnome
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2001
- Messages
- 14,863
This is why "poisoning the well" is a fallacy. Here at least I would not want to hear that someone is making an argument just because they are a TERF, or just because they are following some hierarchy of victimization.
The arguments have to stand on their own.
The arguments have to stand on their own.
That's harder (not impossible, NOT not worth it, but harder) when we're talking about something that is a matter of categorization.
We can't separate the question of "What is a woman" from ALL social and political baggage and some of that baggage is going to be tribal. And valid arguments against poisoning the well doesn't mean we're obligated to pretend baggage doesn't exist.
This is a social question, not a math problem. The baggage is a valid part of it SOMETIMES.
The arguments can't stand on their own because we'll be stuck at "I have four fingers and a thumb" and "No you have five fingers" forever.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The argument from biological sex stands just fine on its own. That's why, over the past few years, the TRA position has deteriorated into a miserable pile of well-poisoning, ad homs, and appeals to improper authority.
Also, the argument from biological sex renders moot almost all concerns and arguments about gender expression.
Gender expression is already protected from discrimination. Beyond that, it doesn't mean anything and doesn't need to mean anything, for the purposes of trans rights. A dude in a dress has all the same rights as a dude in trousers. A dude who makes a big production of how feminine he is day to day has all the same rights as a dude who makes machismo his entire personality. A dude who makes a big production about whether he's a dude, a lady, all of the above, or none of the above, on a day to day basis has all the same rights no matter how he slices it.
So long as we all agree that biological sex is real, and that certain things need to be segregated by sex, gender is irrelevant.
The problem is we don't all agree. Ironically, the root of the disagreement is the irrelevancy of gender. For all practical purposes, the question of trans rights is a question of the right to transcend sex segregation. The right to transcend gender norms and stereotypes is already well established.
Also, the argument from biological sex renders moot almost all concerns and arguments about gender expression.
Gender expression is already protected from discrimination. Beyond that, it doesn't mean anything and doesn't need to mean anything, for the purposes of trans rights. A dude in a dress has all the same rights as a dude in trousers. A dude who makes a big production of how feminine he is day to day has all the same rights as a dude who makes machismo his entire personality. A dude who makes a big production about whether he's a dude, a lady, all of the above, or none of the above, on a day to day basis has all the same rights no matter how he slices it.
So long as we all agree that biological sex is real, and that certain things need to be segregated by sex, gender is irrelevant.
The problem is we don't all agree. Ironically, the root of the disagreement is the irrelevancy of gender. For all practical purposes, the question of trans rights is a question of the right to transcend sex segregation. The right to transcend gender norms and stereotypes is already well established.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
dup
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
The people arguing for exclusionist spaces, services, and leagues are categorizing based on sex attributes (e.g. Lia Thomas experienced all the usual effects of male puberty and retains certain athletic advantages as a result) whereas the inclusionist argument is categorizing something else altogether (e.g. Lia Thomas identifies as a woman and that makes her a woman and hence she belongs in women's leagues and record books).
In your recurring "four fingers and a thumb" vs "five fingers" analogy the two disputants are discussing the same phenomenon in different terms, but that is manifestly not the case here. The sex-based categorizers are not talking about Lia's brain at all, whereas the gender-based categorizers are only talking about her brain and what it does.
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
If only the gender-based categorizers were talking about Thomas's brain. That, at least, is a physical object manifesting measurable physical phenomena.*
Gender-based categorizers are talking about Thomas's mind or mental state, as self-reported by him. It's a metaphysical abstraction. What Thomas is doing is more akin to a religious observance than a biological imperative.
---
*Incidentally, much of this debate would be rendered moot, if a female brain in a male body were actually a measurable phenomenon. But it's not.
Gender-based categorizers are talking about Thomas's mind or mental state, as self-reported by him. It's a metaphysical abstraction. What Thomas is doing is more akin to a religious observance than a biological imperative.
---
*Incidentally, much of this debate would be rendered moot, if a female brain in a male body were actually a measurable phenomenon. But it's not.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,642
It could be in the case of mixed-sex chimera. But I don't think anyone knows what would happen in such an even. Maybe it would make a difference, but maybe it wouldn't do anything. I don't think anyone has studied the question, and it would be very hard to do even if one wanted to.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Yeah, it's totally crazy that the UK Labour party actually caring about the rights and wellbeing of 50% of the population is considered "right wing" by US zealots.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Are you just now noticing this? Buddy, this is something I've been dealing with for a decade or more. Welcome to ISF.Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
TBF, the last time that transgender identifying individual was in this thread, they also told us that they were just as female as me, Rolfe, Jihad Jane, Eleadith, etc. even though they have a penis and testicals and a fully funcitonal male anatomy with none of the elements of a female reproductive system, and a completely typical male karyotype. So...
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Nitpicky quibble - we're talking about Thomas's mind, not their brain. The topic is psychological, not neurological.
Yes and she also totally rejected the "Gender/Sex" distinction (and this was at the point in the discussion where THAT was the primary point of contention), she was adamant she was a biological woman with a penis, it was just a lady penis.
Again the "I'm a progressive so I can speak for the Trans people" have never really lined up what actual trans people are saying as much as they pretend they do.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Sure. For the one person in 500,000,000,000 that has mixed sex chimerism that manifests with their entire brain containing female cells while the rest of their body is comprised of male cells, that might be the case.
And I pinky-swear promise, that when that individual is found, and their chimerism is documented, that single individual gets to pick what prison they want to be in.
Again extremely rare (often to the point of literally being one-off) legit medical biological intersex conditions really do seem to be outside the point of this thread.
Yes I think we can all agree most of our arguments break down when faced with the person who actually does biologically have traits of both male and female.
Yes I think we can all agree most of our arguments break down when faced with the person who actually does biologically have traits of both male and female.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that my post asking what rights transgender people would lose if we maintained sex-based rights got ignored.
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,951
Feel free to tell us why you think transgender women's rights trump those of biological women that does not rely on some sort of victimhood pyramid.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
The feminist push for women's rights was absolutely a category-impact based activism.
The push for trans rights is absolutely a category-impact based activism. It is also an activism that objectively places trans rights above women's rights. It is also an activism that has widespread popularity and support among progressives.
Please let us know when you're done playing the #notallprogressives card. The fact that you apparently don't follow the knee-jerk mainstream would be more heartening, if you ever got around to argue for your preferred context-impact based positions on public policy for trans rights.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
I don't expect the trans rights folks to answer, but most of those issues looked pretty obvious to me.
- The right to be included in toilets and changing rooms based on gender rather than sex at birth
- The right to accommodation in hospitals, refuges, shelters and prisons based on gender rather than sex at birth
- The right to be included in women-only shortlists, award schemes, grants, etc.
- The right to be included in women's sports regardless of other considerations such as fairness or safety
- The right to be included in advocacy for women's rights, e.g. NOW
- The right to be referred to as girls/women based on gender rather than sex at birth
- Status