Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[JoeMorgue]

The entire discourse at this point is just people performatively going

Bill: "You said I have four fingers and a thumb but I counted my fingers and I still got five."
Ted: "No I think thumbs are distinct from fingers. Count again."
Bill: "I still got five."
Ted: "Did you count your thumb."
Bill: "Yes."
Ted: "Okay let's count again."

Everyone gets in the scenario that Bill and Ted aren't having a disagreement about the actual number of digits on a hand right? There disagreement is about how to categorize the digits. Counting the digits again ISN'T GOING TO GET US ANYWHERE.

WE ALL KNOW WE'RE NOT USING THE SAME MEANING FOR A LOT OF TERMS HERE. Stop pretending that's not what this is.

Humanity is:

1. Divided into two biological distinct groups, with allowances only made for very, very, very rare exceptions. Within a rounding error everybody is very clearly and obviously one of two biological sexes with no "complicated spectrum." Literally nobody in this discussion isn't one of those two things or is confused as to which one they are.

2. On a vast, complicated array of things when it comes to social expectations and roles put on us because of point 1.

Please some body explain to me what's complicated or still up for debate as to point 1 or 2 and if there's no debate about 1 or 2 then please explain to me WHAT THE **** WE ARE TALKING ABOUT that isn't just "I'm trying to win an argument via trying to define myself as correct via pure semantics."

So again... what are we talking about? And "It's complicated" isn't an answer.

 

[Paul2]

Again, it's not me, it's the ACLU.

AFAICT they don't really care what those terms are taken to mean since they are both deprecated and superseded by identity.

But you said,

. . . .
These claims may be true or false but they are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated from where I'm sitting.

Nothing like parsing, say, Judith Butler.

If they are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated, then just answer my post #1045 in terms of how *you* understand it.

 

[smartcooky]

There's a good interview with Hilary Cass in the Guardian today.

Children are being used as a football’: Hilary Cass on her review of gender identity services

It mentions the problems caused by clinicians being scared of being called transphobic or being accused of conversion therapy.

It also mentions the attempts by gender clinics to thwart research. '“I do think it was coordinated. It seemed to me to be ideologically driven,” she said. “There was no substantive reason for it. So I can only really conclude that it was because they didn’t feel that it was the right thing to do to try and nail down this data.”'

I have no evidence to support what I am about to post, its just my hunch.

IMO, there is going to be a flood of litigation a few years down the line as people who have been mislead, misdiagnosed and given a concoction of drugs in which the long-term effects were unknown, and the side-effects were lied about, start to suffer those effects. For example, the gender transition idealists assured us that puberty blockers were reversible and harmless. Turns out this was untrue.

There's going to be trouble at mill!

 

[theprestige]

I have no evidence to support what I am about to post, its just my hunch.

IMO, there is going to be a flood of litigation a few years down the line as people who have been mislead, misdiagnosed and given a concoction of drugs in which the long-term effects were unknown, and the side-effects were lied about, start to suffer those effects. For example, the gender transition idealists assured us that puberty blockers were reversible and harmless. Turns out this was untrue.

There's going to be trouble at mill!

Especially now that formal reports are being published, about dereliction and impropriety from the experts pushing these misdiagnoses and mistreatments.

 

[d4m10n]

If they are fairly straightforward and uncomplicated, then just answer my post #1045 in terms of how *you* understand it.

This is a reasonable ask, but I cannot claim to have special insight into what the drafters meant in this particular case especially since the drafters did not take the trouble to define certain fundamental terms.

…how are you defining "sex" and "gender" such that one can tell whether the "or" in "sex or gender" means that sex and gender are synonyms instead of meaning something different than the other but either one is sufficient?

I assume by "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean male/female in biological terms (e.g. testicles vs. ovaries) and by "gender" they mean masculine/feminine in social terms (e.g. boutonnières vs. corsages), but only because this is what these terms are usually taken to mean when standing alone.

If my understanding of the ACLU's claims is correct, then whenever someone asserts a female/feminine gender identity, they are saying either that they are female (in the same sense Boudicca90 claimed to be female), or that they ought to be expected to conform to feminine social norms, or (most likely) both.

 

[theprestige]

This is a reasonable ask, but I cannot claim to have special insight into what the drafters meant in this particular case especially since the drafters did not take the trouble to define certain fundamental terms.

I assume by "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean male/female in biological terms (e.g. testicles vs. ovaries) and by "gender" they mean masculine/feminine in social terms (e.g. boutonnières vs. corsages), but only because this is what these terms are usually taken to mean when standing alone.

If my understanding of the ACLU's claims is correct, then whenever someone asserts a female/feminine gender identity, they are saying either that they are female (in the same sense Boudicca90 claimed to be female), or that they ought to be expected to conform to feminine social norms, or (most likely) both.

I think there's enough evidence that ACLU has been ideologically captured, that it's reasonable to assume that their lawyers have no ******* clue what they mean by "sex" and "gender", and that not even the ACLU itself has a correct understanding of the ACLU's claims.

At the very least, we should not naively assume that the ACLU's meaning and understanding of their claims has been informed by the lines of inquiry that have been pursued in this thread.

 

[Paul2]

This is a reasonable ask, but I cannot claim to have special insight into what the drafters meant in this particular case especially since the drafters did not take the trouble to define certain fundamental terms.

I assume by "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean male/female in biological terms (e.g. testicles vs. ovaries) and by "gender" they mean masculine/feminine in social terms (e.g. boutonnières vs. corsages), but only because this is what these terms are usually taken to mean when standing alone.

If my understanding of the ACLU's claims is correct, then whenever someone asserts a female/feminine gender identity, they are saying either that they are female (in the same sense Boudicca90 claimed to be female), or that they ought to be expected to conform to feminine social norms, or (most likely) both.

So if gender is not a synonym for sex, then #1 says that one option for defining a person's is their biological sex, and that's fine for now. But #1 also says that another option - given the word "or" in "sex or gender," and sex meaning something different from gender - is that one's gender can define one's gender identity. Beyond that appearing to be tautological (given #4), what happens when one's sex is different from one's gender? You have two contradictory factors defining one's gender identity.

If the two instances of the word "sex" were deleted it would eliminate this problem.

ETA: Please stop referring to what you imagine, rightly or not, the ACLU to have meant by their verbiage. You were the one who said this statement was clear and understandable; my questions thus are about how *you* understand the statement, not how the ACLU understands it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can we get one, just one "I am the Lorax, I speak for the Trans" person in here who actually has their own opinion they can actually verbalize and can do something beyond just post links?

 

[theprestige]

Hell, at this point I'd settle for an ally who's willing to engage with the serious scientific and medical issues that have been raised.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So again I will ask.

1. Humans are clearly, obviously, and without any "complicated spectrum" split into two obvious biological categories. Exceptions to this to insanely rare and even then aren't "a spectrum."

2. The rules and expectations put on us BECAUSE of Point 1 ARE complicated across a spectrum, but they are rules and expectations are generally BAD things.

What part of that does anyone disagree with and if they don't disagree with either of those things what are we talking about?

And again, the cut out the dumb ass death spiral of "Okay but define a this or that" I can lay out the point without using the words male, female, man, woman, cis, trans, gender, or sex and still be 100% perfectly clear in what I am saying and at this point I'm pretty much ******* daring other people to try and do the same.

 

[Trausti]

Can we get one, just one "I am the Lorax, I speak for the Trans" person in here who actually has their own opinion they can actually verbalize and can do something beyond just post links?

Perhaps it's a good sign that no one on the thread seems to argue the TRA position anymore.

 

[theprestige]

Perhaps it's a good sign that no one on the thread seems to argue the TRA position anymore.

I take it as a terrible sign. There's tons of people on this forum who still profess the TRA position, but are totally unwilling to argue it or address all of the real criticisms of it. These are people that profess to be critical and skeptical thinkers. People who pride themselves on voting for The Party of Science^TM.

The idea that these people - and the hundreds of thousands more like them - can neither mount a rational defense of TRA policies, nor bring themselves to abandon those policies, is terrifying to me. It's not a good sign at all.

 

[JoeMorgue]

There's a lot of good, honest, reasonable discourse to be had that ISN'T being had that doesn't require invoking "insert extremists position / slur" here.

Meaningful but 100% respectful questions have been asked and not MEANINGFULLY answered.

And even THIS doesn't (exactly) require you to have any specific pro or anti trans position.

The pro-trans "side" (again acknowledging that this is more complicated then just one side) should want to answer these questions with actual answers, not a mumbled "it's complicated, read this study."

 

[Lplus]

I take it as a terrible sign. There's tons of people on this forum who still profess the TRA position, but are totally unwilling to argue it or address all of the real criticisms of it. These are people that profess to be critical and skeptical thinkers. People who pride themselves on voting for The Party of Science^TM.

The idea that these people - and the hundreds of thousands more like them - can neither mount a rational defense of TRA policies, nor bring themselves to abandon those policies, is terrifying to me. It's not a good sign at all.

It is hardly surprising that those who favour ideology over fact are unable to mount a rational defence of their beliefs. Ideological woo doesn't need facts.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So again I will ask. These questions are being asked calmy without the use of insults, slurs, ulterior motives. They are not "gotchas."

"It's complicated" is not an answer. "It's a personal choice" is not an answer. "It's a spectrum" is not an answer. Meaningful, non-semantic answers required. Defining things is not an answer. Don't ask me to count the digits on my hand again if you aren't clarifying whether or not you think a thumb is a finger or not is what I'm saying.

1. What is the OBJECTIVE difference between a cis-woman and a trans-man. (or vice versa.)

2. Can a person go "I am this gender" and be wrong?

3. What is the third variable that is NOT immutable biological factors or social pressures?

4. How is a "Sense of identity" functionally different from a desire or want to be something?

5. How would transgenderism even work in a society that doesn't put any expectations on the sexes?

6. What is the non-semantic difference between "I identity as a woman" and "I'm a man who is taking on all the stereotypes* of a woman)

7. Do you feel that a person who simply declares themselves the other sex and a person who is actively making biological changes to their body via hormones and surgery to be the same thing?

*For 100% clarity and honesty "stereotype" isn't exactly what I'm trying to say but no other word fit. "Outward presentation of" was almost was I was thinking but that didn't feel 100% right either. I can't figure out exactly how to word this one.

 

[Darat]

...snip...
*For 100% clarity and honesty "stereotype" isn't exactly what I'm trying to say but no other word fit. "Outward presentation of" was almost was I was thinking but that didn't feel 100% right either. I can't figure out exactly how to word this one.

Have to be honest and in reality there is a stereotype of women and men that society still expects and that includes outward presentation, this also includes behaviour but we don't need a dissertation! Sure some women and some men don't go along with that stereotype and many women and men decry its existence, but it does exist and most women and men fall into it. I would call that stereotype "gender", I consider akin to DNA and the phenotype - in this analogy the DNA is the biological sex, the phenotype is the gender. With that in mind it I think it is accurate to say that trans men are woman that take on the gender of a man.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Have to be honest and in reality there is a stereotype of women and men that society still expects and that includes outward presentation, this also includes behaviour but we don't need a dissertation!

I get that I was being a bit wordy but given how much of this discourse has been mining any ambiguity to use as a weapon you can't blame me for erring on the side.

Sure some women and some men don't go along with that stereotype and many women and men decry its existence, but it does exist and most women and men fall into it. I would call that stereotype "gender", I consider akin to DNA and the phenotype - in this analogy the DNA is the biological sex, the phenotype is the gender. With that in mind it I think it is accurate to say that trans men are woman that take on the gender of a man.

This would make sense, and this has come up in the past, if transgenderism was a "stopgap." Something people were doing specifically as a way to be who they want to be in a world that, no arguments, still puts a lot of stupid expectations on the sexes.

But that's never how transgenderism was presented to us. I've jokingly asked before "Can you be transgender is you're just a person in a void with no society with a concept of gender or sexual roles around you."

 

[theprestige]

It is hardly surprising that those who favour ideology over fact are unable to mount a rational defence of their beliefs. Ideological woo doesn't need facts.

I'm not surprised. Just depressed that a self-selected population of people who profess to favor fact over ideology absolutely refuse to participate in an active debate of fact over ideology, with real socio-political consequences that affect us all, and that we all have a chance to influence.

 

[theprestige]

Have to be honest and in reality there is a stereotype of women and men that society still expects and that includes outward presentation, this also includes behaviour but we don't need a dissertation! Sure some women and some men don't go along with that stereotype and many women and men decry its existence, but it does exist and most women and men fall into it. I would call that stereotype "gender", I consider akin to DNA and the phenotype - in this analogy the DNA is the biological sex, the phenotype is the gender. With that in mind it I think it is accurate to say that trans men are woman that take on the gender of a man.

I think we realized some time ago that transgenderism functions largely through the reinforcement of regressive misogynistic gender stereotypes. It's a kind of anti-feminism.

 

[Hercules56]

Men are men.

Women are women.

Transmen are transmen.

Transwomen are transwomen.

Ignorant to assume otherwise. Ignorant to say a transwoman is a true, real woman.

Same for transmen. That's why its expected courtesy that a transwoman tell a man that she is trans before they start dating.