Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

[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.

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Here are all the claims they are making without the phrase "sex or gender" included.

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the sex the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s sex is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the gender the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the sex the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s gender is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the gender the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s sex is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

It would be interesting to see which of these four lists strikes you as inherently self-contradictory.

Beyond that appearing to be tautological what happens when one's sex is different from one's gender?

What happens is that you trust them to tell you what their (knowable, durable, and deeply rooted) gender identity really is and then treat them as if that is their sex as well, because sex is multifaceted but subjective identity trumps all the other facets.

You have two contradictory factors defining one's gender identity.

Not if you believe sex is ultimately determined through self-knowledge rather than objective observation, as the ACLU and other rights activists do.

 

[d4m10n]

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?

...maybe PM Boudicca90

Until then, quoting Stonewall (UK) or the ACLU (US) is probably as close as you're going to get to an authoritative opinion from the activist side.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

In an earlier post, TheGoldCountry responded to JK Rowling's April 7 tweet about how she defines a woman...

It will be labeled "transphobia" and dismissed in two seconds, while attacking her without directly addressing anything she said on its own merit.​

I think he nails it here. TRAs won't directly address the criticisms against their views because they cannot do so without descending into woo. There simply are no valid arguments for them to use, so they rely on weasel-wordery such as "its complicated" and "you can't possibly understand unless you are trans yourself" to hand-wave away the criticisms.
‎
‎

 

[JoeMorgue]

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the sex the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s sex is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

None of that makes any sense.

 

[Paul2]

Here are all the claims they are making without the phrase "sex or gender" included.









It would be interesting to see which of these four lists strikes you as inherently self-contradictory.

First of all, I had asked you whether sex and gender were synonyms in the ACLU's text, in *your* opinion, but I haven't heard from you about that, forgive me if I missed it. If I did, please paste a quote.

Secondly, I was only considering the ACLU text when the word "sex" was removed, not "sex or gender." So I'm not sure why you want me to consider the ACLU text when "sex or gender" is removed. It appears to have nothing to do with my point.

What happens is that you trust them to tell you what their (knowable, durable, and deeply rooted) gender identity really is and then treat them as if that is their sex as well, because sex is multifaceted but subjective identity trumps all the other facets.

On the one hand, I have no trouble trusting trans folk when they tell me what their gender identity is. On the other hand, trusting some particular trans person had nothing to do with the import of my comment that you replied to. The import of my comment was, what happens to the clarity and understanding of the ACLU text when one's sex is different from one's gender if each of them, individually (given "or") can determine one's gender, because look what happens when one might consider one's gender to be different from one's sex:

Someone's gender (as reported by them) = female (for instance)
Therefore, gender = female

Same person's sex (as objectively determined) = male
Therefore, gender = male

That contradiction occurs because both sex and gender, not as synonyms, can determine gender, according to the ACLU text.

I feel like I must be missing something to get to this level of detail to explain myself. I actually *hope* I'm missing something, as that would be preferable to the alternative.

Lastly,

Not if you believe sex is ultimately determined through self-knowledge rather than objective observation, as the ACLU and other rights activists do.

It seems like, given this:

. . . .
I assume by "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean male/female in biological terms (e.g. testicles vs. ovaries) . . . .

you're saying that the ACLU considers whether someone has testicles or ovaries to be determined by self-knowledge rather than objective observation.

Unfortunately, we're digging the hole deeper. Pretty soon I'm going to stop digging.

 

[theprestige]

Here are all the claims they are making without the phrase "sex or gender" included.









It would be interesting to see which of these four lists strikes you as inherently self-contradictory.

What happens is that you trust them to tell you what their (knowable, durable, and deeply rooted) gender identity really is and then treat them as if that is their sex as well, because sex is multifaceted but subjective identity trumps all the other facets.

Not if you believe sex is ultimately determined through self-knowledge rather than objective observation, as the ACLU and other rights activists do.

It would help if the ACLU started by telling us how each sex should be treated. Including the nonbinary sex.

 

[d4m10n]

First of all, I had asked you whether sex and gender were synonyms in the ACLU's text, in *your* opinion, but I haven't heard from you about that, forgive me if I missed it.

They are not.

Secondly, I was only considering the ACLU text when the word "sex" was removed, not "sex or gender."

The second set of four claims has the word "sex" removed.

I'm not sure why you want me to consider the ACLU text when "sex or gender" is removed. It appears to have nothing to do with my point.

Consider the second set of four claims.

...what happens to the clarity and understanding of the ACLU text when one's sex is different from one's gender if each of them, individually (given "or") can determine one's gender, because look what happens when one might consider one's gender to be different from one's sex:

Someone's gender (as reported by them) = female (for instance)
Therefore, gender = female

Same person's sex (as objectively determined) = male
Therefore, gender = male

The ACLU is perfectly clear on what to do in this situation, if someone says they are female, treat them as female.

That contradiction occurs because both sex and gender, not as synonyms, can determine gender, according to the ACLU text.

No, what determines gender (and sex) is one's own subjective sense of self, according to the ACLU text. Literally all that matters (from the activist POV) is what someone says they are.

I feel like I must be missing something to get to this level of detail to explain myself.

Amen to this.

...you're saying that the ACLU considers whether someone has testicles or ovaries to be determined by self-knowledge rather than objective observation.

No, I'm saying they stand ready to overwrite all objective observations in favor of subjective sense of self whenever those approaches come into conflict.

 

[smartcooky]

First of all, I had asked you whether sex and gender were synonyms in the ACLU's text, in *your* opinion, but I haven't heard from you about that, forgive me if I missed it. If I did, please paste a quote.

Secondly, I was only considering the ACLU text when the word "sex" was removed, not "sex or gender." So I'm not sure why you want me to consider the ACLU text when "sex or gender" is removed. It appears to have nothing to do with my point.
On the one hand, I have no trouble trusting trans folk when they tell me what their gender identity is. On the other hand, trusting some particular trans person had nothing to do with the import of my comment that you replied to. The import of my comment was, what happens to the clarity and understanding of the ACLU text when one's sex is different from one's gender if each of them, individually (given "or") can determine one's gender, because look what happens when one might consider one's gender to be different from one's sex:

Someone's gender (as reported by them) = female (for instance)
Therefore, gender = female

Same person's sex (as objectively determined) = male
Therefore, gender = male

That contradiction occurs because both sex and gender, not as synonyms, can determine gender, according to the ACLU text.

I feel like I must be missing something to get to this level of detail to explain myself. I actually *hope* I'm missing something, as that would be preferable to the alternative.

Lastly,

It seems like, given this:


you're saying that the ACLU considers whether someone has testicles or ovaries to be determined by self-knowledge rather than objective observation.

Unfortunately, we're digging the hole deeper. Pretty soon I'm going to stop digging.

I have PMed you.

They are not.

The second set of four claims has the word "sex" removed.

Consider the second set of four claims.
The ACLU is perfectly clear on what to do in this situation, if someone says they are female, treat them as female.

No, what determines gender (and sex) is one's own subjective sense of self, according to the ACLU text. Literally all that matters (from the activist POV) is what someone says they are.

Amen to this.

No, I'm saying they stand ready to overwrite all objective observations in favor of subjective sense of self whenever those approaches come into conflict.

No. Paul2 is asking YOU what YOU think?

You do seem to be going a long way out of your way to avoid being pinned down to what YOU actually think!

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I'm saying they stand ready to overwrite all objective observations in favor of subjective sense of self whenever those approaches come into conflict.

So that's really, really stupid.

Why do we care about the opinion of an organization which has subscribed to such stupidity? Are we to take their idiocy as some sort of authority? Are we supposed to not notice the emperor has no clothes?

 

[d4m10n]

It would help if the ACLU started by telling us how each sex should be treated.

They are asking the courts to permit their clients "to use multiple occupancies restrooms and changing facilities located in public school and public charter school buildings that correspond with each Plaintiff’s respective gender identity, notwithstanding the provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 1-125" which is to say that sex (as we generally understand the term) cannot legally be allowed to be the determining factor in such matters. Instead, gender identity is to become the determining factor.

Why do we care about the opinion of an organization which has subscribed to such stupidity?

In a thread about public policy around trans activism, it is helpful to notice what the trans activists have been demanding, not to mention the ideology underlying those demands.

You do seem to be going a long way out of your way to avoid being pinned down to what YOU actually think!

I think that the demands of the trans activists are fairly straightforward and easy to understand. Simply treat people as women if they claim to be women, and treat people as female if they claim to be female.

 

[Orphia Nay]

https://www.reuters.com/sports/naia-bans-transgender-athletes-us-collegiate-sports-2024-04-08/

The National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics on Monday banned transgender women from competing in women's sports, taking a more hardline stance than other athletic bodies that allow trans athletes to compete based on testosterone levels.
The NAIA, representing mostly small colleges, is less influential than the larger National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) but its decision carries some political weight in the wider U.S. debate about transgender rights.
"Only NAIA student-athletes whose biological sex is female may participate in NAIA-sponsored female sports," the association said in its policy.​

The vote was 20-0

I agree with this.

 

[Paul2]

They are not.

Thank you. Noted.

The second set of four claims has the word "sex" removed.

Consider the second set of four claims.

Sorry, I missed that. I see no contradictions in the second set. I actually had intended to mention that if "sex" was removed, the problem with the ACLU text I saw would be removed, but it didn't survive an edit I did.

The ACLU is perfectly clear on what to do in this situation, if someone says they are female, treat them as female.

My comment isn't about "what to do" in some situation. It's about "what happens to the clarity and understanding of the ACLU text. . . ."

No, what determines gender (and sex) is one's own subjective sense of self, according to the ACLU text.

That may be what the ACLU intended to say, and maybe they say that in other text, but that is not what bullet point #1 of the text you quoted says:

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the sex or gender the individual knows themself to be.

Parsing that sentence, we see that (given that sex ≠ gender) sex may determine gender identity, or gender may determine gender identity. That is the meaning of that sentence, given the word "or."

This is exactly why I brought up this issue. You had said that parsing the ACLU text would be straightforward (paraphrasing), but our conversation here has proven it is anything but

Amen to this.

I was being self-deprecating in order to soften or mollify our disagreement, but your comment rubs it in. It was unkind.

No, I'm saying they stand ready to overwrite all objective observations in favor of subjective sense of self whenever those approaches come into conflict.

I guess I need to lay out a syllogism to make my point obvious:

Premise 1: The ACLU says that sex is determined by self-knowledge rather than objective determination (from the last sentence in your post #1082).

Premise 2: By "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean testicles vs. ovaries (from your post #1065).

Conclusion: The ACLU says that having testicles vs. ovaries is determined by self-knowledge, rather than objective determination.

I had said that "you're saying that the ACLU considers whether someone has testicles or ovaries to be determined by self-knowledge rather than objective observation."

Q.E.D.

 

[d4m10n]

My comment isn't about "what to do" in some situation. It's about "what happens to the clarity and understanding of the ACLU text. . . ."

The entire point of their legal complaint was to tell people what to do in some specific situation.

Parsing that sentence, we see that (given that sex ≠ gender) sex may determine gender identity, or gender may determine gender identity.

Nope; the only thing which determines gender identity (according to the ideology undergirding the complaint) is subjective self-knowledge about one's own sex and gender. In the event that self-knowledge runs against every external indicator, it still trumps them all.

You had said that parsing the ACLU text would be straightforward (paraphrasing), but our conversation here has proven it is anything but...

I don't think they could've been much clearer, but here is my own paraphrase:

1) If someone tells you they are female, treat them as such.

2) If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as such.

3) If someone tells you they are male, treat them as such.

4) If someone tells you they are a man, treat them as such.

That's basically everything they are asking for their client here.

I guess I need to lay out a syllogism to make my point obvious:

Premise 1: The ACLU says that sex is determined by self-knowledge rather than objective determination (from the last sentence in your post #1082).

Premise 2: By "sex" the ACLU lawyers mean testicles vs. ovaries (from your post #1065).

Conclusion: The ACLU says that having testicles vs. ovaries is determined by self-knowledge, rather than objective determination.

My post at #1065 did not reduce sex to "testicles vs. ovaries" but rather used those as examples, which is what "e.g." usually means. The actual ACLU position on those specific features may be found in ¶24 of the original complaint.

 

[Pixel42]

They are asking the courts to permit their clients "to use multiple occupancies restrooms and changing facilities located in public school and public charter school buildings that correspond with each Plaintiff’s respective gender identity, notwithstanding the provisions of Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 1-125" which is to say that sex (as we generally understand the term) cannot legally be allowed to be the determining factor in such matters. Instead, gender identity is to become the determining factor.

That's exactly what they are demanding, yes. The fact that this would negate the purpose for which those spaces were originally created is of no interest to them.

 

[Ziggurat]

In a thread about public policy around trans activism, it is helpful to notice what the trans activists have been demanding, not to mention the ideology underlying those demands.

What they are demanding is clear, and that's an end to any meaningful sex segregation. But the ideology is still as clear as mud, and by design.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

1. All human beings have a gender identity—the sex the individual knows themself to be.
2. A person’s gender identity is a fundamental component of their identity that is durable and deeply rooted.
3. Gender identity cannot be changed by social or medical intervention.
4. Someone’s sex is properly understood to be the same as their gender identity.

None of that makes any sense.

It's just a semantic game at this point. A collection of buzzwords, each one defined by all the others in an unending loop.

Just as circular as all the religious arguments that define God.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's just a semantic game at this point. A collection of buzzwords, each one defined by all the others in an unending loop.

Yep. Which is why my current challenge is for anyone to actually explain anything without using the words sex, gender, man, woman, male, female.

And then someone claimed they could do it and LITERALLY USED THE WORD GENDER IN EVERY SINGLE BULLET POINT.

At this point a lot of the ambiguity is intentional.

 

[d4m10n]

And then someone claimed they could do it...

Who claimed they could do it and which post was that?

 

[Roboramma]

The entire point of their legal complaint was to tell people what to do in some specific situation.

Nope; the only thing which determines gender identity (according to the ideology undergirding the complaint) is subjective self-knowledge about one's own sex and gender. In the event that self-knowledge runs against every external indicator, it still trumps them all.

I don't think they could've been much clearer, but here is my own paraphrase:

1) If someone tells you they are female, treat them as such.

2) If someone tells you they are a woman, treat them as such.

3) If someone tells you they are male, treat them as such.

4) If someone tells you they are a man, treat them as such.

That's basically everything they are asking for their client here.

My post at #1065 did not reduce sex to "testicles vs. ovaries" but rather used those as examples, which is what "e.g." usually means. The actual ACLU position on those specific features may be found in ¶24 of the original complaint.

It's pretty frustrating watching someone intentionally miss the point this much. Your paraphrases of their 4 points do not have the same logical structure as the actual 4 points, and that logical structure is the thing that Paul has been repeatedly (and very clearly) trying to get you to acknowledge.

I think your point is simply that you know what they are trying to say, and you understand what sort of policies they would like to implement. That's fine, it seems to me that you do. But that's different from the actual logical structure of the words they wrote, which is, as Paul points out, internally inconsistent. And the reason for that inconsistency is that there really is a problem with these ideas, but it's a problem which they attempt to hide, and that attempt to hide the actual issues here has led them to write those inconsistent points.