Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[theprestige]

The only reason they're saying sex is complicated is because we finally started pointing out that they can complicate gender all they want, but sex is actually dead simple.

 

[Roboramma]

Cisgender men being denied the right to enter female designated spaces is not "the exact same extent" of a denial as transgender women being denied the right to enter female designated spaces, for obvious reasons. The former group does not want to be accepted in female spaces as a matter of personal affirmation and does not claim that a lack of acceptance will negatively impact their mental health.

"They want it more" isn't an argument that they don't have the same rights. All males (both trans women and cis men) are denied the same right. The fact that cis men don't, in general, want that right doesn't change that.

You might argue that it impacts on the question of whether or not they should be granted that right. And I'd agree that it does impact on that question. But on the question of whether or not they are being granted that right, it's clearly the case that both groups are being treated the same, at least where sex based segregations are still being enforced.

Do you really believe they are impacted by these denials in the same way?

Impacted? Of course not. But equal treatment under the law isn't the same as equal impact. "I want it more than they do" isn't an argument that you have fewer rights than them. It may be an argument for a policy change, but it's not an argument that your rights are being denied.

 

[MBDK]

There are people out there who are working to provide the 'Scientific Evidence' needed and they publish in 'Peer Reviewed' journals. Here's an abstract from a recent paper on 'Deconstructing Sex', the full text is linked to below the abstract.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X23001393?via=ihub

Just FYI, I read that paper, and their point of contention is indeed covered in their abstract. However, it should be noted that this effort to produce more research, that MAY include data that promotes specific agendas, in no way provides any scientific argument that supports or denies the assertion of fraudulent claims made by the AAP. It is merely an argument to change the definition of "sex" regarding humans in scientific literature, to ALWAYS include the non-binary variations, despite the fact that they already have their own scientific terms.

The paper also uses biased language in their pleadings, such as:

“Hormones” and “female” have long been synonymous outside our field

And this is utter tripe, as I can't count the number of times the word "hormones" has been used in direct conjunction with male misbehaviors, particularly the young.

I could go on, but in short, my impression is that this paper is just trying to provide an illusion of scientific validity, which does not actually exist, by demanding researchers include every possibility of deviation, from a human binary sex format. in all of their related work. Such a demand would be VERY cumbersome and detrimental to effective and efficient research as a whole, especially when you consider that those minority designations DO get their own specific research performed for them, for the topics that specifically affect them.

This is just another ploy to change long-established definitions to seem more supportive of a political agenda. Remember, "gender" in reference to humans was exclusively synonymous with their sex type for HUNDREDS of years, until the feminist movement of last century began to obfuscate, then change it - for POLITICAL purposes.

From- https://www.etymonline.com/word/gender

The "male-or-female sex" sense of the word is attested in English from early 15c. As sex (n.) took on erotic qualities in 20c., gender came to be the usual English word for "sex of a human being," in which use it was at first regarded as colloquial or humorous. Later often in feminist writing with reference to social attributes as much as biological qualities; this sense first attested 1963. Gender-bender is from 1977, popularized from 1980, with reference to pop star David Bowie.

When you are actively trying to change previously established definitions in a manner in which that change solely supports your political agenda, you are deceptively trying to argue semantics, rather than facts.

 

[Ziggurat]

There are people out there who are working to provide the 'Scientific Evidence' needed

Perhaps the AAP should have waited for some of that evidence to come in before claiming they already had it.

Here's an abstract from a recent paper on 'Deconstructing Sex', the full text is linked to below the abstract.

You do realize that that paper is just an opinion piece, right? There's no actual science in it. And its agenda is purely and explicitly political. I also don't see what this has to do with the AAP and their fraudulent position paper.

 

[Ziggurat]

The only reason they're saying sex is complicated is because we finally started pointing out that they can complicate gender all they want, but sex is actually dead simple.

Furthermore, even to the extent that "intersex" conditions (more accurately called disorders of sexual development, or DSD) are complicated, they also have basically nothing to do with the trans debate. The overwhelming majority of trans folk do not have any DSD. This debate isn't about the few that do.

 

[Pixel42]

Do you really believe they are impacted by these denials in the same way?

No, but I believe all women are impacted by these acceptances in the same way.

If cisgender women say "We have a right to female-only changing rooms!" and transgender women say "We have a right to use changing rooms which match our gender!" only one of them can be correct in any given jurisdiction at any given time. It's not a question which can be settled by appeal to abstract moral reasoning.

Then what should settle it? The greatest good of the greatest number? Or should we stick with the traditional 'the needs of any males take priority over the needs of all females'?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

You do realize that that paper is just an opinion piece, right? There's no actual science in it. And its agenda is purely and explicitly political. I also don't see what this has to do with the AAP and their fraudulent position paper.

Well, a great many people don't seem to recognize the difference.

Just redefine the words to mean whatever you want. It does make biology class much easier. "What feels right to you?"

 

[Elaedith]

Helen Joyce got shortlisted for the Sense about Science Maddox Prize. I heard some people are mildly annoyed.

 

[Elaedith]

Perhaps the AAP should have waited for some of that evidence to come in before claiming they already had it.



You do realize that that paper is just an opinion piece, right? There's no actual science in it. And its agenda is purely and explicitly political. I also don't see what this has to do with the AAP and their fraudulent position paper.

I took Graham2001's post to be sarcasm. Both the AAP policy statement and the 'deconstructing sex' paper have the same issue; the authors think it acceptable to start with the desired conclusion and then work backwards to construct evidence for it. Which of course means it is not science by definition, because the only thing separating science from non-science is that with science you don't do that.

 

[gnome]

No, your perception is wrong.

The pushback started when people who were obviously male, weren't even trying, and were no longer being considerate of the females in female spaces started demanding that they have the *right* to invade our spaces and to violate our boundaries. The pushback started when the adult male with a dangling dick decided that it was more important for them to have a *right* to be in the showers at the same time as the female middle school swim team... and that the young females were the ones with the problem if they didn't like seeing a penis in the female showers. The pushback started when the state took the side of the adult male who had been parading their genitals around in front of minor females and told the females they needed to find somewhere else to shower if they were uncomfortable with penises.

These seem very specific, can we put a date to it here? The earliest among these, perhaps.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There are people out there who are working to provide the 'Scientific Evidence' needed and they publish in 'Peer Reviewed' journals. Here's an abstract from a recent paper on 'Deconstructing Sex', the full text is linked to below the abstract.

In human-oriented biomedical research, the use of simplistic (and often binary) models of sex ignores the existence of intersex, trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people and contributes to a medical paradigm that neglects their needs and interests.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X23001393?via=ihub

Well, no. The use of a binary view of sex ignores the 0.002% (or less) of the population that are mixed sex chimeras where their chimerism affects their reproductive system.

The rest of those aren't sexes.

Whether you identify as fat or thin or just right doesn't change what the scale says. Similarly, a person who identifies as a "woman" or a "man" or "nonbinary" doesn't change their sex.

 

[Emily's Cat]

The only reason they're saying sex is complicated is because we finally started pointing out that they can complicate gender all they want, but sex is actually dead simple.

Sex in mammals and birds is very simple. Sex in the overwhelming majority of vertebrates is simple.

It's not always easily observable in some individuals... but sex is still straightforward.

 

[theprestige]

Sex in mammals and birds is very simple. Sex in the overwhelming majority of vertebrates is simple.

It's not always easily observable in some individuals... but sex is still straightforward.

No offense, and you're not the only one who does this, but please stop doing this.

We all know what we're discussing here. There's absolutely no reason to pollute the conversation with irrelevant tangents that everyone knows are irrelevant.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No offense, and you're not the only one who does this, but please stop doing this.

We all know what we're discussing here. There's absolutely no reason to pollute the conversation with irrelevant tangents that everyone knows are irrelevant.

I don't know what you think is irrelevant or why. Please elaborate?

 

[MBDK]

No offense, and you're not the only one who does this, but please stop doing this.

We all know what we're discussing here. There's absolutely no reason to pollute the conversation with irrelevant tangents that everyone knows are irrelevant.

I have to agree with Emily, but I also admit I have not read the vast majority of the thousands of posts made in this thread, so may be a bit ignorant. Rather than just guess, would you please be specific regarding what your issue(s) is(are) with her post as well as what you perceive to be the boundaries for the topic of discussion?

ETA: I guess I should have said I agree with Emily's Cat, as I do not know if Emily alone is considered appropriate.

 

[theprestige]

I don't know what you think is irrelevant or why. Please elaborate?

I have to agree with Emily, but I also admit I have not read the vast majority of the thousands of posts made in this thread, so may be a bit ignorant. Rather than just guess, would you please be specific regarding what your issue(s) is(are) with her post as well as what you perceive to be the boundaries for the topic of discussion?

ETA: I guess I should have said I agree with Emily's Cat, as I do not know if Emily alone is considered appropriate.

If you don't see that the complexity of biological sex in non-mammals is totally irrelevant to a discussion of trans rights in public policy, then I owe you both an apology for my ableism and exercise of neurotypical privilege. I'm very sorry. Please forgive my previous remarks.

 

[MBDK]

If you don't see that the complexity of biological sex in non-mammals is totally irrelevant to a discussion of trans rights in public policy, then I owe you both an apology for my ableism and exercise of neurotypical privilege. I'm very sorry. Please forgive my previous remarks.

I actually think we're on the same wavelength. I believe the point Emily's Cat was making is in reference to those who argue that nature blurs the lines in some animals/organisms, so we should accept such ambiguity in humans, also. By pointing out that is not the case for the vast majority of creatures (especially those most closely related to humans - my additional tidbit), Emily's Cat is refuting that notion, and inferring, as you pointed out and I agree with, such an argument is irrelevant. Still, I don't want to put words into Emily's Cat's mouth, but that is my take on it.

 

[Brainster]

The State Department apparently doesn't have enough going on; today they issued a proclamation on Intersex Awareness Day. Okay, yeah it was just some flunky issuing a standard press release. But check out this interesting wording:

Intersex persons often face stigma and discrimination in accessing education, healthcare, and legal recognition, and are subjected to medically unnecessary surgeries.
Medically unnecessary surgeries you say? You mean like double mastectomies for teenage girls on the autism spectrum?

 

[d4m10n]

Please don't refer to females as "cisgender". It relegates us to the sidelines of our own sex class. And that's extremely insulting and offensive.

Request denied. I need some way to differentiate between transgender women (born male, do not identify as such) and cisgender women (born female, do identify as such) and you have not provided alternative nomenclature which would be more widely understood.

(On a bit of a side note, I find almost any attempt to move the needle by falling on the fainting couch to be unworthy of consideration. This is perhaps an idiosyncratic failing on my part, but I'm trying to treat females as if they have mental toughness equivalent to males.)

But before we even get there... why are the desires of the males in question being granted precedence in the first place? Why on earth should the desires of males - regardless of whether they're honest or not - be granted a higher priority in policy than the desires, safety, and dignity of females?

If I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate here, the answer is obvious: Consult your nearest progressive stack.

It centers the desires of males as the most important thing, and it relegates all female perspectives to a secondary or tertiary role.

It has been pointed out multiple times upthread that females are generally more accepting than males on various questions about deferring to gender rather than sex. See the crosstabs on basically any social survey on point for details.

This is all a long winded way to circle back to "Why the **** should females be expected to have their mental health negatively impacted in order to positively impact the mental health of some males"?

Because most of them want to do so, and they live in a democratic society.

 

[MBDK]

Request denied. I need some way to differentiate between transgender women (born male, do not identify as such) and cisgender women (born female, do identify as such) and you have not provided alternative nomenclature which would be more widely understood.

You already used that term you claim to be looking for. What is being argued in this thread is that the lone term "woman" should, or shouldn't, be the default to the biological female. I believe it should. Perhaps the prefix "pseudo" could be a substitute?

If I'm going to keep playing devil's advocate here, the answer is obvious: Consult your nearest progressive stack.

Not obvious at all. The question was intended to see what the rational was behind such a condition, and you have used the term, "progressive stack", which means what, exactly?

It has been pointed out multiple times upthread that females are generally more accepting than males on various questions about deferring to gender rather than sex. See the crosstabs on basically any social survey on point for details.

And there are many people that tolerate other bad behaviors, but that is in no way a justification for continuing to allow those behaviors.

Because most of them want to do so, and they live in a democratic society.

That's a callous way to separate yourself from having any concern for the problem. Ignoring women having "their mental health negatively impacted", is the same as ignoring people who cut themselves, because "most of them want to".