Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

By what, clothes? I haven't worn a dress/skirt, heels or makeup in over thirty years. Hobbies? My idea of a perfect weekend is watching motor racing. Again, how does one live as a member of either sex without resorting to aping regressive gender stereotypes?

Framing behavior as "aping a stereotype" is the problem. Are you "aping a stereotype" of gender neutrality?

There are no hard and fast parameters, and lines that must not be crossed, but broad ones are certainly true for most. If you are rocking a gender neutral lifestyle, than identification with a gender is probably not a big deal to you. It is to those who loudly want recognition.

You won't often catch me on a dress or makeup either. Does that mean I am mindlessly "aping a stereotype", or just living as I am comfortable, which uncoincidentally happens to jibe with the "regressive stereotypes" of my sex in my broad culture?

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't help that schools turning boys into girls is a thing that's already happening.

Sometimes one just stares at a post, rereading it over and over, hoping to find some other way of interpretating its meaning...

 

[HansMustermann]

By what, clothes? I haven't worn a dress/skirt, heels or makeup in over thirty years.

Same for me, and I was born a biological male

 

[Pixel42]

Still waiting for examples of what specifically a male would need to do in order to unambiguously "behave and present" as a female, or vice versa.

 

[HansMustermann]

Framing behavior as "aping a stereotype" is the problem. Are you "aping a stereotype" of gender neutrality?

We've been through this before about this... well I have. We've already had the idea of gender roles since the 50's. The idea being that, basically there's nothing inherent in wanting to play with toy pistols if you're a boy, or like to shop for fancy clothes if you're a girl. Most of those didn't even exist when the species evolved. Hell, what's male and what's female even changes several times in history. Like, one of the most recent changes is that it used to be pink for boys and blue for girls. But there are worse. And then there are the geographical variations, if you look at anthropology.

It's just a role. Something you learn from your peers.

Anthropology calls it enculturation. You learn how to function in your culture or sub-culture. Like, even among males, you shake hands nowadays but you'd shake each other's forearms if you were in ancient Rome. Or two men kissing each other on the cheek might mean friendship, or "the kiss of death" in the Italian mafia, as in, if the Don kisses you, you will be killed after the meeting ends. Or the thumbs up gesture is a positive sign in Europe and the USA but it's the equivalent of the middle finger in Arab cultures. There is no inherent meaning to those acts, it's just what your (sub)culture assigns to them. And you just learn what they mean by observing your peers, and act accordingly.

You can call that "aping a stereotype", or really whatever you wish, but basically that's how the traditional gender roles worked. If you were a woman you "aped the stereotype" of being the one who cooks dinner and takes care of the kids, and whatnot. You learned to fit (or "ape") the stereotype assigned to you, and there's something wrong with you if you don't. Then we learned that it's just a role, not something hard-wired in your brain or your genes.

The modern "progressives" rolled back all of that almost a century of progress. They rolled it back to if you liked to play with dolls, it means you're REALLY a girl. (True story, I had a beheaded dolls just like Wednesday Addams. And a pudgy younger brother. And, come to think of it a witch grandma...)

They rolled it back to Iran levels of enlightenment. Seems less known in the west, but if you want to act and live as a woman, Iran is one of the most accommodating... as long as you fully transition, and take the snip-snip operation. You want a woman role? Yeah, but you have to become a woman. They'll even pay for the operation.

So yeah, we went from being permissive and understanding about gender roles, to Iran levels of enlightenment. Suddenly it's not that there's nothing inherently female to do this or that, like be a nurse or cook dinner, to if you like to do that, you're somehow secretly female and the counselling is just to convince you of that.

And more importantly, if one's idea of progressive is having the same ideas as the reactionaries from a century ago... yeah... well... it ought to give one pause for thought

 

[HansMustermann]

TMI...

To my partial defence, it was asked.

 

[Thermal]

We've been through this before about this... well I have. We've already had the idea of gender roles since the 50's. The idea being that, basically there's nothing inherent in wanting to play with toy pistols if you're a boy, or like to shop for fancy clothes if you're a girl. Most of those didn't even exist when the species evolved. Hell, what's male and what's female even changes several times in history. Like, one of the most recent changes is that it used to be pink for boys and blue for girls. But there are worse. And then there are the geographical variations, if you look at anthropology.

It's just a role. Something you learn from your peers.

Anthropology calls it enculturation. You learn how to function in your culture or sub-culture. Like, even among males, you shake hands nowadays but you'd shake each other's forearms if you were in ancient Rome. Or two men kissing each other on the cheek might mean friendship, or "the kiss of death" in the Italian mafia, as in, if the Don kisses you, you will be killed after the meeting ends. There is no inherent meaning to those acts, it's just what your (sub)culture assigns to them. And you just learn what they mean by observing your peers, and act accordingly.

Right, and that's what I'm saying. If a trans woman identifies as being a woman in her sub/culture, it's going to mean she identifies as ...what she sees around her that is what a woman is. Not in medieval Japan or a tribe in the Amazonian rainforest.

The modern "progressives" rolled back all of that almost a century of progress. They rolled it back to if you liked to play with dolls, it means you're REALLY a girl. (True story, I had a beheaded dolls just like Wednesday Addams. And a pudgy younger brother. And, come to think of it a witch grandma...)

They rolled it back to Iran levels of enlightenment. Seems less known in the west, but if you want to act and live as a woman, Iran is one of the most accommodating... as long as you fully transition, and take the snip-snip operation. You want a woman role? Yeah, but you have to become a woman. They'll even pay for the operation.

So yeah, we went from being permissive and understanding about gender roles, to Iran levels of enlightenment. Suddenly it's not that there's nothing inherently female to do this or that, like be a nurse or cook dinner, to if you like to do that, you're somehow secretly female and the counselling is just to convince you of that.

I guess I missed something then. I don't blink at a male nurse, nor do I think Gordon Ramsey is a closet woman for preparing a meal.

But I suppose the thread has been all over this, many times. It's not my intention to newbie reset and have you hash it out again. When I have an extra... couple months... I'll go back over the years of postings to play catch up.

 

[theprestige]

Oh, agreed. Bio males are bio males, and have physiological advantages that can't be swept under the rug.

I'm thinking in terms of the social aspect, whether you call a trans woman he or she. Like, it doesn't bother me to call a transitioned/fully commited trans woman "she", but with an aterisk when it comes down to physical competition.

I dunno. I just peek in here once or twice a year to see if things have progressed, which you would kind of expect after the first few pages.

What do you consider transitioned/fully committed? Do you think it's simply a matter of self-declaration? Are there specific, verifiable steps they must take? Is it a matter of a medical diagnosis and transition as a prescribed treatment plan? Your reasoning and conclusions on these points would progress the discussion quite a bit, if it's coherent.

Do you just make an asterisk for physical competition? Or do you include all matters of sex segregation based on the physical disparity between the sexes?

As far as I can tell, the gender critical side has reached its apotheosis. Unless the TRAs bring something new and coherent to the table, there's no real progress to be made in the debate. The next steps will be to change public policy, based on what conclusions people have reached or are reaching.

I respectfully suggest that the reason you don't see any progress here is because you're ignorant of the progress that's been made, and also because you yourself have not made any progress in your thinking on this issue.

Here's the conclusions I've reached:

Preferred pronouns are antisocial and unhealthy. They should be deprecated across the board.

Fiat self-ID is the perfect cover for sexual predators, and is already being exploited as such wherever it's instituted.

Gender, decoupled from sex, is essentially meaningless, rendering much of the debate moot, or absurd, or both.

The only part of the public policy debate that still matters is about transgenderism as transcending sex segregation. I think this is objectively misogynistic, and should be prohibited across the board.

Trans rights activism is anti-science, pro-censorship, and utterly cultist in its response to dissent.

These are the conclusions I have reached, as a result of the progress I have made through participation in this debate. Unless you have made progress of your own, towards some competing conclusion of substance, I don't see how there's any more progress for me to make, here.

What would represent progress, to me, would be peer reviewed research, finding that social transition was a necessary and effective treatment for some sort of mental health condition.

What would represent progress, for you?

 

[HansMustermann]

Right, and that's what I'm saying. If a trans woman identifies as being a woman in her sub/culture, it's going to mean she identifies as ...what she sees around her that is what a woman is. Not in medieval Japan or a tribe in the Amazonian rainforest.

Indeed so, but WHAT does it even MEAN to be a woman in his or her culture, other than the body type (which again, is more than just the reproductive system)? What exactly did he learn that would be different if he were a woman?

THAT is the problem. It rolls back the idea of gender roles, to it somehow meaning you ARE a woman if you like doing roles X, Y and Z.

Because without that, you literally don't have a leg to stand on. Unless you can say that, say, he'd be doing roles X, Y, and Z, and that means being a woman, you are left holding an empty bag. If both men and women could just as well be doing X, Y and Z, there is literally nothing to say that he's been living as a woman.

 

[Agatha]

Framing behavior as "aping a stereotype" is the problem. Are you "aping a stereotype" of gender neutrality?

There are no hard and fast parameters, and lines that must not be crossed, but broad ones are certainly true for most. If you are rocking a gender neutral lifestyle, than identification with a gender is probably not a big deal to you. It is to those who loudly want recognition.

You won't often catch me on a dress or makeup either. Does that mean I am mindlessly "aping a stereotype", or just living as I am comfortable, which uncoincidentally happens to jibe with the "regressive stereotypes" of my sex in my broad culture?

No, you misunderstood me. I'm not aping any stereotypes and I don't live a "gender neutral lifestyle", whatever that might mean (frankly, I have no idea). I don't "live as a woman/man/enby". whatever those mean. I live as myself. I am a woman, happily so.

I'm trying to find out what you mean by "living as a woman". What does a trans-identifying man have to do in order to "live as a woman" as you proposed upthread, and how does it resemble (or differ from) the way I or any of the actual women on this thread live our very different lives?

 

[theprestige]

Or, if @Thermal wants to put it another way, what's the practical consequences of living as a woman, other than access to sex segregated spaces for women?

Transgender folks are already protected by law, from discrimination in housing, employment, etc. due to their "gender expression". So that's a solved problem already.

 

[Thermal]

Indeed so, but WHAT does it even MEAN to be a woman in his or her culture, other than the body type (which again, is more than just the reproductive system)? What exactly did he learn that would be different if he were a woman?

THAT is the problem. It rolls back the idea of gender roles, to it somehow meaning you ARE a woman if you like doing roles X, Y and Z.

Because without that, you literally don't have a leg to stand on. Unless you can say that, say, he'd be doing roles X, Y, and Z, and that means being a woman, you are left holding an empty bag. If both men and women could just as well be doing X, Y and Z, there is literally nothing to say that he's been living as a woman.

I still don't see it as a role. While I'm not trans myself, I understand it as they think they are the actual opposite sex, not a role they identify with. I hit on that earlier; if the role play is what they're all excited about, they need to sit down with a dictionary and Grey's Anatomy and get their terminology right.

It's like the trans sexual v trans gender thing. The former I get. The latter I'm not convinced even exists, and surely has no place in private space discussions.

 

[Thermal]

Or, if @Thermal wants to put it another way, what's the practical consequences of living as a woman, other than access to sex segregated spaces for women?

Maybe to not have people calling them a "he" to their faces, and being constantly (and often cruelly) reminded that what's going on between their ears is not jibing with the rest of their carcass?

Transgender folks are already protected by law, from discrimination in housing, employment, etc. due to their "gender expression". So that's a solved problem aalready.

To some extent, in the legal sense, sure. But when the rubber hits the road in an informal social setting, where we spend over half our lives? Maybe not so much.

 

[theprestige]

I still don't see it as a role. While I'm not trans myself, I understand it as they think they are the actual opposite sex, not a role they identify with. I hit on that earlier; if the role play is what they're all excited about, they need to sit down with a dictionary and Grey's Anatomy and get their terminology right.

It's like the trans sexual v trans gender thing. The former I get. The latter I'm not convinced even exists, and surely has no place in private space discussions.

Then it sounds like you've already made pretty much all the progress there is to make, short of recognizing that you've already arrived at the endgame.

 

[theprestige]

Maybe to not have people calling them a "he" to their faces, and being constantly (and often cruelly) reminded that what's going on between their ears is not jibing with the rest of their carcass?

To some extent, in the legal sense, sure. But when the rubber hits the road in an informal social setting, where we spend over half our lives? Maybe not so much.

Nobody is entitled to freedom from discrimination in an informal social setting. I suspect there's nobody who's ever enjoyed such a privilege. I certainly haven't. Trans self ID is not magic. It doesn't entitle you to a privilege literally no one else enjoys.

Also, "he" is a biological reference. If he's truly upset by the "cruelty" of his biology as properly perceived and referenced by those around him... He should seek medical treatment, not enablement via Orwellian public policy.

But you're begging the question of a mental disorder, and begging the question that social transition is a humane and effective treatment for the condition. The silver lining here is that you're rejecting fiat self ID.

 

[Thermal]

Nobody is entitled to freedom from discrimination in an informal social setting. I suspect there's nobody who's ever enjoyed such a privilege. I certainly haven't. Trans self ID is not magic. It doesn't entitle you to a privilege literally no one else enjoys.

Also, "he" is a biological reference. If he's truly upset by the "cruelty" of his biology as properly perceived and referenced by those around him... He should seek medical treatment, not enablement via Orwellian public policy.

But you're begging the question of a mental disorder, and begging the question that social transition is a humane and effective treatment for the condition. The silver lining here is that you're rejecting fiat self ID.

There are at least two major angles going here: the legal (discrimination and private spaces) and the social. They are going to be a little different in practice, but I see the argumentative lines getting blurred.

As you say, no one is free from being ridiculed. But misgendering a trans person smacks to me of ridiculing a disabled person. It might not be illegal in every context, but it's unnecessarily douchey.

Eta: also, I'm not suggesting a mental disorder, per se, in trans gender people. Just that they are too on board with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative that needs to get crystal clear clarified to be productively discussed.

 

[theprestige]

There are at least two major angles going here: the legal (discrimination and private spaces) and the social. They are going to be a little different in practice, but I see the argumentative lines getting blurred.

As you say, no one is free from being ridiculed. But misgendering a trans person smacks to me of ridiculing a disabled person. It might not be illegal in every context, but it's unnecessarily douchey.

Eta: also, I'm not suggesting a mental disorder, per se, in trans gender people. Just that they are too on board with a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative that needs to get crystal clear clarified to be productively discussed.

I mean, you literally suggested a mental disorder.

And it seems to me that we've had a very productive discussion, in spite of the TRA's manifest refusal and inability to crystal-clarify their ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative. Indeed, that shortcoming is kind of Exhibit A, of the bankruptcy of their position.

Anyway, aside from transcending sex segregation, what do you think transwomen need, that they don't already have?

 

[HansMustermann]

I still don't see it as a role. While I'm not trans myself, I understand it as they think they are the actual opposite sex, not a role they identify with.

Maybe. But it means the argument that someone has actually lived as a woman is pretty much null and void. What they lived as was a role, not something determined by anything else. It means as little as Robin Williams being a woman because he played Mrs. Euphegenia Doubtfire. It was just a role.

 

[HansMustermann]

I mean, you literally suggested a mental disorder.

... for at least some of which we already even have a name for in the DSM-V: the body integrity identity disorder (BIID). There are people who think their identity is being one-legged, so they want to have a healthy leg amputated. Or they identify as someone in a wheelchair, so they want someone to sever their spine to that effect. Clue is in the name: it's considered a disorder, and there's increasing momentum building to the idea that they should get some other treatment than fulfilling their wish to be in a wheelchair.

... except when it's about breasts or genitals, apparently. And especially when they're confused children.

But generally, it seems to me like the very definition of a delusion: believing something in the face of ample evidence to the contrary. Like, you look down when going to the john and see a forest of chest hair and a dick, and you still think you ARE a woman. Err... dunno... seems to fit that definition.

Mind you, I can understand other stuff, like WISHING you were female. Been there, done that. But identity, as in thinking you are one... Eh, no, go back to the psychiatrist

 

[Thermal]

Maybe. But it means the argument that someone has actually lived as a woman is pretty much null and void. What they lived as was a role, not something determined by anything else. It means as little as Robin Williams being a woman because he played Mrs. Euphegenia Doubtfire. It was just a role.

Ok, but without dissecting the analogy too much- a role is knowingly playing, pretending. I believe trans people when they say it's who they feel like they *are*, plumbing notwithstanding. They're being themselves; it's the body that is out of place.