Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[d4m10n]

This is a lie. The 'alternative' nomenclature - which is to say, the current norm - is gender and transgender.

I've never yet seen "gender" as an adjective.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't dig on the whole "cisgender" is a slur thing, but I done with people pretending like they don't get why it's considered weird by some people.

When you're a tiny minority (in the literal demographic mathematic sense of the term NOT in a judgmental sense of the term) is not reasonable to expect language of a precision that clarifies that 99% of the population ISN'T something that almost nobody is.

Again GO OUTSIDE. I know this is the internet where every other person is an asexual gender fluid transexual otherkin furry with sprinkles but outside where you breathe air and touch grass most of us aren't running into hard to categorize people all the time. Most people are just men and women in an uncomplicated way, and we're allowed to default to that.

I personally metaphysically guarantee that everyone in this discussion makes linguistic choices based on what categorize cover "most" things to a degree far outside "transgenderism" and don't lose any sleep over it.

If you ask if a car has the steering wheel on the left or the right and by some rare chance the car is a McLaren F1 and you didn't account for the steering wheel being in the center, you haven't committed some grave sin of non-inclusion. Nobody screams at you for "McLaren F1 Erasure" because you assumed it would fall into the same two categories that 99% of all cars that have ever been made would fall into.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Also because as I said before "transgender" is a bad term that covers way too many disparate things; everything from people post-surgery and hormone treatment to "I'm 6'5, 250 lbs, with a full beard, broad shoulders, and a penis and I identify as a woman."

 

[Ziggurat]

There is no linguistic reason to assume ____women are not women.

And there's no linguistic reason to assume that ring worm isn't a worm. But it's not a worm, it's a fungus. Your statement is trivially true but irrelevant to the issue at hand. We aren't limited in our knowledge to what we can linguistically assume. We're all familiar with the context of the debate here.

Calling myself a cisgender identified male doesn't answer any questions at all

Now you've pulled a bait and switch, because this isn't actually equivalent. Man is the compliment to woman, not male. And female is the compliment to male, not woman. A transwoman isn't a transgender identified female, but a transgender identified male.

 

[MBDK]

There is no linguistic reason to assume ____women are not women. Alderwomen are women, bagwomen are women, chairwomen are women, Englishwomen are women, firewomen are women, guildswomen are women, kinswomen are women, laundrywomen are women, mailwomen are women, newswomen are women, policewomen are women, servicewomen are women, tradeswomen are women, vestrywomen are women, etc.

The problem with your reasoning is simple. Every example you have provided is a combination of two separate nouns, which can stand by themselves in a normal sentence. They are combined to describe the actual woman to a more refined category. When you add a prefix, rather than a noun, you have a new word, with a different meaning, not all of which equate to the noun by itself. Nonwomen are not women, pseudo-women are not women, contra-women can be used to indicate the opposite of women, and so on. Therefor the use of "trans", when prefixing "woman" can also be interpreted to denote someone who is not a woman. The fact that the prefix "trans" itself does not clearly establish that interpretation one way or another, is mere semantics, as biological facts (and ALL facts) are independent of language. Based on said facts, the term transwoman, or transgender is more than adequate to address the subject. Alternate definitions are political banter unaligned with those facts.

 

[d4m10n]

Now you've pulled a bait and switch, because this isn't actually equivalent.

It's not a bait-and-switch, it is a direct reply to EC's claim that "transgender identified male" is acceptable terminology but both "cisgender identified male" and "cisgender identified female" are so offensive that they ought to be tabooed in discussions such as this one, on account of the leading adjective.

Man is the compliment to woman, not male.

I'm perfectly content to be referred to as a "cisgender man" as well, and as with the above phrases I'm not seeing why it ought to be considered taboo.

Therefor the use of "trans", when prefixing "woman" can also be interpreted to denote someone who is not a woman. The fact that the prefix "trans" itself does not clearly establish that interpretation one way or another, is mere semantics, as biological facts (and ALL facts) are independent of language.

Nothing that you've written here addresses the point of contention between EC and myself. Why exactly should "transgender identified male" be acceptable but "cisgender identified female" considered taboo?

 

[d4m10n]

Again GO OUTSIDE.

It is raining and cold outside.

Most people are just men and women in an uncomplicated way, and we're allowed to default to that.

Who has been arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to use "men" and "women" in the traditional default way? I'm not the one promulgating linguistic taboos here.

 

[MBDK]

Nothing that you've written here addresses the point of contention between EC and myself. Why exactly should "transgender identified male" be acceptable but "cisgender identified female" considered taboo?

What I wrote countered your failed reasoning regarding the linguistic use, as noted. Now you claim it is irrelevant? Then why did you write it?

As for the question you posed above, under most circumstances, it is also illogical to have to clarify a basic term independently from an outlier. Example: When I talk about my home, it is generally understood that it is my main residence without any qualifiers. However, a "vacation" home or "temporary" home, etc., distinctly separates those from the normal use of "home", and are recognized as a different entity from that normal use. This in no ways means I should have to, or be encouraged to, refer to my actual home as anything, but plainly, "home". In most circumstances, when talking about my home individually, or even in context with said "vacation home". etc., there is usually no need to qualify it with additional nomenclature ("permanent", "non-temporary", etc.). That does not make it taboo, just as "cisgender identified female" is not taboo (I realize "taboo" may not have been used in a literal manner), however, I would find such demands or uses annoying and antagonistic, and even more so, should I have no "conditional" home(s).

 

[d4m10n]

What I wrote countered your failed reasoning regarding the linguistic use, as noted. Now you claim it is irrelevant? Then why did you write it?

In reply to the argument at #2538 which claims "transwomen" and "women" should be construed as a dichotomy with no overlap between the two.

As to your analogy to homes, consider "I just moved into a new home" versus "I miss our former home." In the first case, we are probably talking about someone's primary residence (i.e. "home" in the usual standalone sense) and in the second case we are almost certainly not. Having an adjective in front of "home" doesn't necessitate no overlap with the unmodified noun, just as is the case with having an adjective in front of woman.

That does not make it taboo, just as "cisgender identified female" is not taboo...

You must have missed the post that kicked off this particular side discussion, in which EC asked to make "cisgender" taboo going forward, on grounds of giving offense.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's not a bait-and-switch, it is a direct reply to EC's claim that "transgender identified male" is acceptable terminology but both "cisgender identified male" and "cisgender identified female" are so offensive that they ought to be tabooed in discussions such as this one, on account of the leading adjective.

Hold up. That's not the terminology you were using that EC objected to. Let me remind you:

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.

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.

If women are adult human females, then transgender women are transmen (not transwomen), and cisgender women are just women.

I'm perfectly content to be referred to as a "cisgender man" as well

That's got nothing to do with whether EC feels insulted by "cisgender women".

and as with the above phrases I'm not seeing why it ought to be considered taboo.

The terminology concedes at least the possibility that transwomen are women, and all that comes with that linguistic position. If you agree with that position, then obviously you wouldn't have any reason to consider it taboo. If you not only disagree with that position but are offended by it, then of course the terminology is going to be offensive as well.

Nothing that you've written here addresses the point of contention between EC and myself.

Because you aren't paying enough attention. Case in point:

Why exactly should "transgender identified male" be acceptable but "cisgender identified female" considered taboo?

Again, "cisgender identified female" wasn't the term EC objected to, at least not in this exchange. "Cisgender woman" was.

 

[Samson]

I think there is a bit of fiddling while Rome is burning on thread, elegant though the conversation has become.

Helen Joyce is adamant:

They are sterilizing gay kids!

She says it many times on this clip.

https://youtu.be/liSilQOyRxg?si=e4dlkroSHDEqXAUi

Only two hours.

 

[d4m10n]

If women are adult human females, then transgender women are transmen (not transwomen), and cisgender women are just women.

This follows if "women" (unlike most English words) is generally agreed to carry one and only one possible meaning. Otherwise, it does not.

That's got nothing to do with whether EC feels insulted by "cisgender women".

Disagreed. In order to persuade someone to change their own language, the person being persuaded ought to understand why that language is considered harmful. Since I do not see the harm, I will not make the change.

The terminology concedes at least the possibility that transwomen are women...

I've conceded that possibility several times in this thread, since I try to keep an open mind about the subject under discussion. It doesn't even seem particularly controversial to me that "woman" could be redefined to include folks like Laurel Hubbard.

Again, "cisgender identified female" wasn't the term EC objected to, at least not in this exchange. "Cisgender woman" was.

She wrote "Please don't refer to females as 'cisgender'" without any qualification to which nouns might follow the offensive adjective in question. Presumably "cisgender menstruators" would also be taboo, since they are necessarily female.

If you agree with that position, then obviously you wouldn't have any reason to consider it taboo. If you not only disagree with that position but are offended by it, then of course the terminology is going to be offensive as well.

Let's talk about what I find offensive here. I am offended whenever people try to win arguments by tabooing language in line with their own subjective sense of propriety. This goes for the gendercrits who hope to taboo "cisgender women" as well as the intersectional feminists who hope to taboo "biological female." It also goes for the cold readers who demand respect for the bereaved when they are criticized, and for clerics who demand respect for religion in the face of blasphemous publications or displays. If taking offense is enough to win the argument, I hereby take offense on behalf of the norms of free discussion and debate.

Again, to reiterate my stance: I am going to use the language that seems best to me for expressing the ideas relevant to our discussion here. If you don't like it, take it up with the mods.

 

[d4m10n]

In hopes of less pointlessly meta discussion, here's an interesting post from GCN on Substack:

https://open.substack.com/pub/genderclinicnews/p/in-the-dark

Experts in research methodology in the Netherlands, the country that gave the world puberty blockers, have identified fundamental flaws in pioneering Dutch studies crucial to the evidence base for youth gender clinics internationally.

“There is no comparison group [in these 2011 and 2014 studies from the famous Amsterdam gender clinic], and all patients who received puberty blockers also received psychological counselling at the same time, so two treatments were running side by side,” Maastricht University research methodologist Gerard van Breukelen said in a new documentary, “The Transgender Protocol”, broadcast by the Dutch investigative journalism program Zembla.​

The documentary broadcast is included in the post, but be ready to read subtitles unless you happen to understand Dutch. If you do, by the way, I'd be interested to know whether Zembla is considered generally journalistically reputable.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

 

[Elaedith]

In hopes of less pointlessly meta discussion, here's an interesting post from GCN on Substack:

https://open.substack.com/pub/genderclinicnews/p/in-the-dark

Experts in research methodology in the Netherlands, the country that gave the world puberty blockers, have identified fundamental flaws in pioneering Dutch studies crucial to the evidence base for youth gender clinics internationally.

“There is no comparison group [in these 2011 and 2014 studies from the famous Amsterdam gender clinic], and all patients who received puberty blockers also received psychological counselling at the same time, so two treatments were running side by side,” Maastricht University research methodologist Gerard van Breukelen said in a new documentary, “The Transgender Protocol”, broadcast by the Dutch investigative journalism program Zembla.​

The documentary broadcast is included in the post, but be ready to read subtitles unless you happen to understand Dutch. If you do, by the way, I'd be interested to know whether Zembla is considered generally journalistically reputable.


Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

The Dutch studies are criticized in this paper which was discussed in a previous episode (of the thread, that is).

 

[Ziggurat]

This follows if "women" (unlike most English words) is generally agreed to carry one and only one possible meaning. Otherwise, it does not.

No ****, Sherlock. I explicitly qualified that. You don't have to repeat a qualification I just gave.

Disagreed. In order to persuade someone to change their own language, the person being persuaded ought to understand why that language is considered harmful. Since I do not see the harm, I will not make the change.

I was not trying to persuade you. I was trying to inform you. You seem strangely reticent to even understand EC's position, which doesn't require that you agree with it.

I've conceded that possibility several times in this thread, since I try to keep an open mind about the subject under discussion. It doesn't even seem particularly controversial to me that "woman" could be redefined to include folks like Laurel Hubbard.

Words can be redefined to mean anything. That's not the question. The question is whether they should be.

Let's talk about what I find offensive here. I am offended whenever people try to win arguments by tabooing language in line with their own subjective sense of propriety.

If you're serious about this, then you must be massively offended by the trans rights advocates, since this is one of their primary tactics.

I'm not convinced you are serious about this. Perhaps you just don't like it when someone objects to your language.

Again, to reiterate my stance: I am going to use the language that seems best to me for expressing the ideas relevant to our discussion here. If you don't like it, take it up with the mods.

EC asked you to not use certain language. You are free to refuse to do so. I don't think anyone here claimed you weren't. But you are causing her offense by doing so. Which, again, you are entitled to do. It's up to you how much you care that you are offending her, I never claimed you had to. But don't play dumb about why she finds it offensive. You're smarter than that, when you want to be.

 

[d4m10n]

If you're serious about this, then you must be massively offended by the trans rights advocates, since this is one of their primary tactics.

DING DING DING

It's a violation of the norms of civil discourse when they do it, and I'd bet nearly anyone here would be willing to call them out for making appeals to their personal feelings instead of publicly available evidence. I don't see why their ideological opposition should get a free pass to borrow from that same playbook.

But don't play dumb about why she finds it offensive.

She said exactly why she finds "cisgender" offensive; I remain quite skeptical as to whether she is correct. It isn't remotely obvious to me how the term "relegates [females] to the sidelines of [their] own sex class," any more than any other adjective which applies to the vast majority of members of any given class of human beings.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Who has been arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to use "men" and "women" in the traditional default way?

Please, please, please, I beg you stop pretending like this is complicated.

The "traditional" way includes not putting additional modifiers on it. This is so not difficult to understand it's hard to believe your confusion is genuine.

 

[d4m10n]

The Dutch studies are criticized in this paper which was discussed in a previous episode (of the thread, that is).

Thanks for that. If you've already read it, the video won't add much unless you want to see some of the key figures being interviewed in person. What makes the doco interesting to me is that there seems to be a general vibe shift in what sort of media are being created for general consumption, at least in Europe (see also Hannah Barnes & Stephen Nolan over at BBC).

 

[d4m10n]

This is so not difficult to understand it's hard to believe your confusion is genuine.

I'm not confused, I'm asking you to answer a simple question:
Who has been arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to use "men" and "women" in the traditional default way?

To prevent confusion on your end, I'll ask in a different way:
Has anyone here tried to make the traditional usage taboo?

(If so, I'm against it.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not confused, I'm asking you to answer a simple question:
Who has been arguing that we shouldn't be allowed to use "men" and "women" in the traditional default way?

You're pulling a bait and switch again. The conversation in this thread isn't about what you should be allowed to say, but about what you should say. That's an important distinction. When someone tells you they think something is offensive, they're telling you that you shouldn't say it, not that you shouldn't be allowed to.

And everyone who answered the thread title question in the affirmative (and there are plenty who did) thinks we shouldn't use "men" and "women" in the traditional way.