Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[Emily's Cat]

But what are you basing that number on? Is it that humans are super good about determining genetic information on sight or is it that most people's gender expression matches their sex? If the latter, it would suggest that if only 50% of people's gender expression matched their biological sex, would the claim be 50% obvious?

And how would you definitively answer that question? (and don't bother with that study that actually strips out gender expression. That's the thing we're trying to determine.)

It's based on the fact that we're a materially sexually dimorphic species. And it's based on common ******* sense. And it's also based on several studies that have been done showing people's faces alone, with no makeup, in black and white, with no hair and no clothing, and observing that we accurately categories people as male or female with over 99% accuracy.

FFS, this myth of yours is tiresome. Males and females are SHAPED differently, we have different skeletons, different face shapes, different femur to hip angles, different heights, different hand and foot sizes, different amounts of body hair! All of those are obvious indicators of sex, and they're fundamental to us being a sexually reproductive species!

You keep pretending it's a total ******* mystery whether any random person seen in passing on the street is male or female. And it's not. And if you insist that YOU personally have only a 50% accuracy rate when passing a stranger on the street, then either you are subject to a neurological deficit and your brain doesn't work in the way that 99.999999999% of human brains work... or you're being disingenuous.

Your premise is flawed. Some normative biological sex traits are visible, but so are non-normative biological sex traits and non-normative* gender traits.

The rest of us are talking about sex. Actual, real, biological sex. And within that context, I'd really like to hear what you think constitute sex traits versus "gender" traits, as well as which you think are normative versus non.

* if you believe that sex must be determinative of gender. I don't, but I also know the thread.

I, as well as a great many of those in this thread, do NOT believe that sex is determinative of a set of social stereotypes.

 

[Upchurch]

My view is that current controversies should not be taught in primary school classrooms at all. This is a venue for settled questions where the answers have broad and longstanding consensus viewpoints.

And, Intellectual Design is not controversial among the people who actually study evolution. It has instead been made controversial by advocates pushing an agenda.

Current controversies and philosophical disputes if taught at all in these venues should be taught with a view to giving students a reasonably accurate understanding of the current state of play, without dictating the "correct" conclusion they should reach about a matter that is decidedly not yet settled.

I don't think there is as much "current" controversy on the topic in academia as you are suggesting. Most biologists, for example, would agree that sex is a bimodal spectrum and not binary. Most sociologists, as I have said, agree that gender is a social construct. I can't remember reading anyone of authority saying it explicitly, but gender is probably also bimodal. The current controversy is mostly stemming from politics.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, but you see how it doesn't address the question at hand, right? That study is an ideal case where even atypical biological features are minimized. Neat, but not really relevant to real world situations or the question at hand.

Explain this, because I don't think this is true.

How gender expression clues, or even non-normative sex clues, effect our ability to guess someone else's biology is the question. It clearly has some effect or the examples I've given wouldn't exist. Humans might be good, but that could just be because the book often matches the cover. If it turns out that humans are really bad when the book doesn't match the cover, how would we know?

My grandparents had a bowl of wax fruit on their dining room table. It was very realistic looking, and as a child I was FOOLED.

The take-away from your statement is that *sometimes* it's possible for *intentional deception* to successfully *trick* people who would otherwise be able to tell.

Hollywood is really good at making fake blood and fake cuts and bruises. Good enough to trick people because they're intentionally faking it. That does not, however, imply that humans are unable to identify blood, cuts, and bruises when they're real.

And, taking a step back, this forum was originally associated with the work of James Randi, a man who made his livelihood, both in his shows and with his debunkings, off of the fact that human perception is really bad. Claims that humans are, in general, supper accurate about anything should be met with skepticism and critical thinking.

Lol, you're bringing Randi into this? Are you even vaguely aware that you're holding up cases of INTENTIONAL DECEPTION and pretending they're so real that you can conclude that humans can't tell males from females at all, it's a total mystery and about a 50/50 guess all the time. You're the one who is, for all intents and purposes, suggesting that it was totally random luck that the person you were attracted to just happened by chance to be of the opposite sex so that you were able to procreate successfully. You totally had no idea whether your spouse was male or female when you met them, and it was a complete surprise when you were exposed to their unclothed body.

 

[varwoche]

That would just be a female No transwoman is female in any way at all. They are, by definition, male. Being male is a prerequisite for being a transwoman in the first place.

I chose that wording to prempt possible objections that would distract from my point, while staying within the bounds of reality.

Speaking of my point, I re-invite Upchurch to answer: What about girls who are displaced from a team by trans? Why are these girls' wants and needs of lesser importance?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Wow. Now, that's an interesting claim that should be expanded on, and I would love to see support for it.

"Hurr hurr, it's an exceptional claim that sexual reproductive species have sex discernment as a fundamental element of our evolutionary mapping"

Sure, sure. Totally makes sense that humans are completely unique among mammals in having to be TAUGHT to tell which other individuals within our species are potentially reproductively viable pairing.

 

[varwoche]

"Hurr hurr, it's an exceptional claim that sexual reproductive species have sex discernment as a fundamental element of our evolutionary mapping"

Sure, sure. Totally makes sense that humans are completely unique among mammals in having to be TAUGHT to tell which other individuals within our species are potentially reproductively viable pairing.

Indeed.

I'm planning to post about fish, birds, dogs, and wolverines at some point.

 

[gnome]

And how often do you hear the "groomer" charge around here? Almost never; I do recall a few years ago someone talking about "who benefits" from children who are medically prevented from going through puberty, but that was by far the exception.

I should clarify that, thankfully, I don't hear a lot of that argument here. I get more than I want of it elsewhere.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'll ask again.

1) What is the difference between a society which doesn't one put unnecessary gender roles so that biological men/women can do anything that isn't necessitated by pure biology and a society which has strong(er) gender roles but lets people just decide which team they are on?

2) ONLY IF YOU HAVE ALREADY CLEARLY AND IN HUMAN SPEECH AT LEAST TRIED TO ANSWER #1 what is the advantage the later has over the former?

I know I'm not your target respondent... but I feel a need to state the obvious on this.

1) The difference is that the former is a relatively logical approach that seeks equality on the basis of sex within a society... and the latter exalts an ideological belief in gendery souls in a way that overrides all of those few things that are pure biology.

2) No advantages, lots of downsides and loopholes

 

[smartcooky]

Deleted and reposted

 

[Emily's Cat]

Did you look at my link to Jessica Rosenberg? Is that a bloke in a wig? What about the Mayor of Nashville and his family, of which there were diverse opinions?

You keep harping on the false negatives as a way to avoid acknowledging that false positives are pretty damned rare.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I didn't say because I don't know.

Is this a case of "I don't know 100% perfectly" or is this a case of "I don't know and can't even make a guess that I think would exceed 50% likelihood"?

 

[smartcooky]

Just thought I'd drop this here...

Sums up my position on self ID perfectly!

 

[Emily's Cat]

In a less obvious wig and a slightly fashionable pair of glasses, they would just look like a super dumpy looking lady to me. I don't usually spend a lot of time wondering if women who look like a pile of potatoes are really men, though I suppose that yes I'd look twice if they were wearing Charles Nelson Reilly glasses and a really obvious wig.

Is anyone actually suggesting there's no such thing as a trans person who doesn't pass for **** ? If not, what's the point of showing people who pass as well as a bloke in a Monty Python skit?

In isolation, in a still photo, it might be hard to tell.

Put them in the presence of females, however, and it's not a mystery. Hell, Laverne Cox looks a lot less convincing when they're in the presence of females, because their sheer height, shoulder breadth, hand and foot size end up being far more obvious when you have a comparison point.

Kind of like how if you have a still photo of a pony without any clear indicators of measure can make them look like a horse. But if you put a horse in there, or a yardstick, you can immediately tell that it's a pony.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, the point is that we haven't actually measured how accurate human ability to estimate someone's biological sex based on appearance, given atypical biological clues and social gender expression outside of what is normative for cis gendered people (or even what a particular group finds normative within that group).

You're right! Gosh, we haven't done a massive amount of research to see if the 0.02% of people with DSDs that affect their secondary sex characteristics get mistaken by casual observers! How dare we make statements based on the 99.98% of people that we interact with on a regular basis! Shame on us, we should totally start rewriting all generalites based on non-mutated genetic combinations!

We need to be extra sure to say that humans are a species with some number of legs including zero, and with some number of fingers including zero, and some number of maybe or maybe not having eyes. Really, we don't have any ******* idea what a human is at all, it's a mystery. We definitely can't tell the difference between a human and a bonobo, we can only barely tell the difference between a human and a hummingbird after all! Both can show up without fingers, after all!

The claim that humans have super awesome transdar is just a claim. It hasn't actually been supported with anything but cherry picking and cognitive bias.

On the other hand, you're super confident that your position of the sex of humans being a total mystery all the time is perfectly reasonable and well supported, right?

 

[Emily's Cat]

You'd still have masculine cis women being denied access to women's restrooms.

You know this is a recent thing, right? And that this is a DIRECT result of males practicing sexual deception?

The only reason any masculine-appearing females get challenged is because we keep having to deal with actual ******* males demanding that they can use our areas. And that false presentation, that costuming, has made us hyper aware and untrustworthy.

In fact, if you go back several years, this is one of the predicted outcomes of males demanding that they have a right to use female single-sex spaces because of their internal feelings and wishes.

It's very much like teens using fake IDs to buy alcohol or tobacco. It affects people who are of age to do so, because they end up having to show their IDs in order to get the vodka that they're legally allowed to buy.

The difference is that you're essentially arguing that because some young-looking 30 year olds get denied a sale because the cashier doesn't believe them and thinks they have a fake ID... you think we should STOP IDing anyone at all ever, and just let anyone who says "Oh, yeah, I totally am 21" buy alcohol whenever they want.

Actually, it's worse. They don't even have to claim that they're actually 21. They would just have to say that they feel like they're 21.

 

[Upchurch]

Speaking of my point, I re-invite Upchurch to answer: What about girls who are displaced from a team by trans? Why are these girls' wants and needs of lesser importance?

I know people hate when a question prompts another question, but here it is: What about girls who are displaced from a team by cis girls? Are those girls' wants and needs of lesser importance than of the cis girls who made the team? If not, why not and how is that different from trans girls?

ETA: An I'll re-invite you to answer: Are you willing to put your 99% accurate DNA perception to the test?

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is why I think the "groomer" narrative around the transgender topic was specifically crafted to resurrect the fear of homosexuals "recruiting" kids, only with a different target because attacking homosexuals doesn't work anymore. The back and forth of the argument starts to sound very much the same.

So... it's not actually. It's the other way around - pedophiles are USING transgender activism and its platform in order to gain easier access to kids.

And it was the same issue historically, when gay and lesbian people were seeking equal rights and marriage equality. It is verifiable that Nambla in the US and similar organizations in other countries attached themselves to the gay rights movements, and used that platform to try to push through greater acceptance of pedophilia as well as trying to reduce age of consent and to remove barriers to their access to minors. It was a big controversy among gay and lesbian people, and there are many documented cases of predominantly lesbians being extremely opposed to the inclusion of pedophiles in ANY of their efforts toward equality. Once those Pedo orgs were clearly and officially rejected, and removed from shared activism, gay rights progressed pretty quickly with the only real hold-outs being religious fundamentalists.

That's part of what's going on right now. The trans rights efforts have had two groups attach themselves to their banner: pedophiles and transvestites. Pedos are again pushing for removal or severe reduction of the age of consent, and for the loosening of safeguards that prevent them from accessing minors. Go look into "MAPs" (Minor Attracted Persons), they're pretty much all attached to an organization that professes to seek transgender rights. They've added language to WPATH and other orgs that calls for removal of age of consent laws. None of those MAP organizations are acting independently, they're all sticking themselves to transgender efforts.

The same thing is true with transvestites. They've become wrapped up with gender dysphorics, and they're probably the single largest group that is campaigning for males to be allowed into female sports, prisons, showers, etc. They're the force behind the narrative that gender dysphoria isn't a necessary component of being trans; and they're the largest force behind self-id - because they were exactly the people that were denied clinical support for transition under the prior rules.

Virtually every single one of us in this thread who has argued that transwomen are not women, and shouldn't have access to female single-sex spaces, and shouldn't play on female sports teams... All of us 100% support transgender people have equal access to employment and housing, and being protected from violence on the basis of their presentation. Every one of us supports them actually having equal rights, and being protected from systemic discrimination. Nobody should be denied employment or housing on the basis of their gender presentation - none at all, and I have no tolerance for it. And a surprisingly large number of "old school" transsexuals hold gender critical views when it comes to sports and single-sex spaces.

Several of us have said it until we're blue in the face" Most of this discussion is not about a person being transgender, it's about a person being male.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And how often do you hear the "groomer" charge around here? Almost never; I do recall a few years ago someone talking about "who benefits" from children who are medically prevented from going through puberty, but that was by far the exception.

I don't think any of us* have levelled the claim that transgender people are groomers in general. Some of us have certainly observed that groomers have attached themselves to the trans movement, and that it needs to be addressed before any real progress can be made.

*us being all of the posters whose posts I can see

 

[Elaedith]

And, Intellectual Design is not controversial among the people who actually study evolution. It has instead been made controversial by advocates pushing an agenda.

The entire nonsense about sex being a spectrum and gender identity replacing sex is the result of activists pushing an agenda. There is no actual science behind it, and no advocate has ever been able to demonstrate actual science.

I don't think there is as much "current" controversy on the topic in academia as you are suggesting. Most biologists, for example, would agree that sex is a bimodal spectrum and not binary.

No, most biologists do not agree that 'sex is a bimodal spectrum and not binary' because it isn't in any meaningful sense. The binary nature of sex is central to evolutionary theory. Activists do attempt to destroy the reputations and careers of biologists who assert the binary nature of sex - something that should be of concern any genuine scientific sceptic.
Jerry Coyne explains the issue pretty well.

Most sociologists, as I have said, agree that gender is a social construct.

If gender is a social construct, it cannot be an innate property of a person like sexual orientation. You can't even present a viewpoint that has basic coherency.

I can't remember reading anyone of authority saying it explicitly, but gender is probably also bimodal.

This is meaningless since there is no stable and objective definition of gender.

The current controversy is mostly stemming from politics.

The entirety of the sex is a spectrum and gender replaces sex nonsense stems from the subordination of science to ideology. You are not able to distinguish science from pseudoscience and instead use a silly heuristic that tries to define science by reference what you think different political tribes believe, rather than to evidence.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think any of us* have levelled the claim that transgender people are groomers in general. Some of us have certainly observed that groomers have attached themselves to the trans movement, and that it needs to be addressed before any real progress can be made.

I think at a certain point, the refusal of the TRA movement to deal with their fellow travelers becomes objectively pro-groomer.