Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

I can't speak for anyone, but far as I can tell, the question is not really about empathy. The question was about a cold, logical way you'd determine if someone has actually lived as a woman or not. You introduced that distinction, so it seems fair to ask how you'd recognize that. I mean, I'm all open for an enlightening answer to that. I might even change my way I look at it, if you tell me how to tell who's been living as a man or as a woman. (As opposed to, say, some perv just saying so to get into the women's prison.)

I don't know how I'd recognize that. It's up to them, and what they think it means. I haven't got the slightest idea what it would feel like to believe I am a woman. I can only kinda sorta get what being a trans man would feel like (feeling just like I do right now, but looking down and seeing female plumbing). There's simply no external standard I can defer to, and I'm just trusting them to have it sussed out for their own interpretation of what it would look like.

 

[Emily's Cat]

(True story, I had a beheaded dolls just like Wednesday Addams.

My dolls weren't beheaded... but they did all end up with punk hair-dos and makeup.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

One of the problems with this is that in a great many cases, what that transgender identified male identifies as isn't remotely similar to what actual real females in modern society are. There is a serious overrepresentation of transgender identified males who identify as either porn or exaggerated anime stereotypes of females.

Look, if you want to get a feel for why so many Gen-X and older females are entirely put out by this... Just check out Dylan Mulvaney's series on their "transition to girlhood". Note that it's all focused around being a "girl" as opposed to a "woman". Listen to their Day 1 episode, and let me know if you can empathize with how a rather large number of females felt in response.

Dylan Mulvaney on Instagram: "Day 1 of being a girl #trans #woman"

20K likes, 1,652 comments - dylanmulvaney on March 12, 2022: "Day 1 of being a girl #trans #woman".

www.instagram.com

 

[d4m10n]

FTFY

Name-calling isn't an argument, and name-calling behind someone's back certainly isn't the opposite of cowardice.

 

[HansMustermann]

I don't know how I'd recognize that. It's up to them, and what they think it means. I haven't got the slightest idea what it would feel like to believe I am a woman.

Kind of my point, innit? I don't even know what other men feel. Like, my brother is into guns and cars, I'm not. Dad was into "manly" FPS games, because as a Real Man (TM) he has to shoot someone, I wasn't. Hell, even as a kid, other boys were into toy guns and whatnot, I sucked at cowboys and indians and had dolls. Etc. Forget thinking like a woman, I don't even really know what other men feel. What does it even mean to feel like a man?

Or in my earlier analogy about thinking I'm a cat, as a wise man (Terry Pratchett) once wrote, "Sodomy non-sapiens." ("Bugger me if I know.") WTH does the cat actually feel or think? I mean, I would like to sit on someone's lap and have someone pet my hair. Grandma used to do that. But lately I'm starting to think, wouldn't I get bored out of my little skull just swatting at a cat toy all day while the human is at work? Like, even if they bought me a game for cats, would I actually be entertained for many months just swatting at fish on a tablet screen. Invent a console controller that works with paws already, and get me Skyrim. (It has Khajiit)

So, anyway, more importantly, since you introduced that distinction, what implication would you draw from that?

 

[d4m10n]

A third one leaves the fold: Richard Dawkins resigns from the Freedom from Religion Foundation

Well, that makes three of us. Steve Pinker, I, and now Richard Dawkins, have all decided independently to resign from the Honorary Board of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). The organiz…

whyevolutionistrue.com

If ever you find yourself systemically squelching free inquiry as a freethought organization, it's time to pause and reassess.

 

[HansMustermann]

My dolls weren't beheaded... but they did all end up with punk hair-dos and makeup.

Yes, well, some of us would bite the head of anything when we're teething. But I managed to behead even a full sized baby doll. (When I said that grandma wanted a girl and raised me as one, I wasn't just whistling dixie.)

Seriously, later when watching the Addams Family, I wanted to be Wednesday. At least she had a sane family. Well, by comparison

 

[Emily's Cat]

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.

If this were actually what was at the heart of the modern movement, we might all have very different views. You're looking at this as if it's about the transsexuals of 50 years ago just not wanting to get beat up. And all of us in this thread are very strongly opposed to anyone being harmed as a result of how they present, and we can all feel some sympathy and compassion for those few who genuinely have a serious mental disorder with respect to their sexed bodies.

But that's NOT what current activism is about. And THAT'S why we have this thread. Current activism is about self-declaration of gender identity, and trying to create legal policies that allow such self-declaration to override any existing separation on the basis of sex. Current activism is about anyone who says they "feel like a woman" being entitled to use any and all female single-sex spaces without consideration to the females, being privileged to join females in spaces where we're naked or vulnerable, be housed in female prisons, and compete in female sports. Part and parcel with this is the demand that no clinical diagnosis be required (because it's not a mental disorder, see) and no physical alteration be required (that's gatekeeping dontcha know?) but that simultaneously all hormones and desired surgeries be mandated to be available to them through insurance (or free if you're in UK etc.) if they want it. And if a male wants to rock a full beard but wear a mini skirt, then females just have to roll with it and call them "she" and let them be nude in the Korean Spa while tumescent.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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?

Why?

If what's going on between their ears is a sincere and heartfelt belief that they're Napoleon... do you think people should refer to them as "your highness" in order to avoid hurting their feelings?

I don't think there's any other mental disorder for which we expect the rest of society to play along with something that is objectively false.

 

[Emily's Cat]

But misgendering a trans person smacks to me of ridiculing a disabled person.

Why should I be obligated to refer to someone who looks like a male and is incontrovertibly actually a male as if they were female? More specifically... why should the victim of rape be forced to refer to their rapist with female pronouns?

Should we be expected to refer to Rachel Dolezal as a black person?

 

[theprestige]

It's because I don't want to be a jerk to people (unintentionally). I want people to feel included and welcome and free to live their lives. Part of that is to *not* tell them they are not what they think they are daily.

The shortest, most fair way to get there, as I see it, is to force clarity on the gender thing. That ends all debate, although not in the way gender cheerleaders will like. If it doesn't mean sex, then discussions about using the opposite sex's bathrooms etc are over and we go about our merry way.

Eta: the only reason a single word of this debate exists is because we don't nail down a definition of gender. Gender cheerleaders want to say it's "how you internally think of yourself" when it's convenient, and say it's synonymous with sex when otherwise convenient, then say "it's complicated" when you point out they are being ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

Then you're looking for a broader societal change, that must take place outside this thread. So it doesn't really make sense for you to drop by this thread once a year, talking like you expect us here to be making progress on this front.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It's because I don't want to be a jerk to people (unintentionally). I want people to feel included and welcome and free to live their lives. Part of that is to *not* tell them they are not what they think they are daily.

Nothing says you can't be as nice as you want to be with your own stuff. Literally none of us are saying that you should be prohibited from calling Eddie Izzard "she" if it makes you feel nice to do so. On the other hand, however, we don't think you should be in a position to obligate us to call Eddie Izzard "she".

I don't tell my transgender identified male nephew that they're a "he", I pretty much avoid the topic completely. I love my nephew, regardless of their ideas about themselves and some of the extremely whacky things they've said. But I also don't refer to them as "she", especially when they're not around to hear it. At the end of the day, my nephew is a 6'2" 200 lb male with size 13 feet, ginormous hands, and an adam's apple big enough to be used in a pie. They do NOT pass, even if they wear purple leggings and a sparkly shirt.

The shortest, most fair way to get there, as I see it, is to force clarity on the gender thing. That ends all debate, although not in the way gender cheerleaders will like. If it doesn't mean sex, then discussions about using the opposite sex's bathrooms etc are over and we go about our merry way.

Eta: the only reason a single word of this debate exists is because we don't nail down a definition of gender. Gender cheerleaders want to say it's "how you internally think of yourself" when it's convenient, and say it's synonymous with sex when otherwise convenient, then say "it's complicated" when you point out they are being ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊.

I don't think there's a way to nail down a definition of gender in a way that is useful. I also don't think that's why we have this debate.

We have this debate, because a whole lot of well-meaning people made the mistake of assuming that "transgender" meant the person genuinely thinks they're in the wrong body and has had surgery to remove their genitals, and that this is a very tough thing to go through and we should be sympathetic to that plight... and then we found out that this assumption was entirely wrong. Only a tiny fraction of them have genital surgery at all, and 80% of them have no desire to lop off their twig and giggle berries. And it turns out that the most vocal proponents of self id who are the most demanding about gaining access to female spaces are actually autogynephiles for whom all of this is a gigantic live-action porn with unwilling participants.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Slippery slopes are a fallacy, so please don't use that in an argument. Here it's not a case of slippery slope, as in, it must lead to something else in the future, but a present correlation, and a strong one at that. It's like in my unlicensed drivers example, it's not a slippery slope argument that they'll cause accidents, it's actually an existing fact that they cause a disproportionate amount of accidents (given their percentage of cars on the road) if they drive.

A slippery slope is more like "if you disallow trans in women's bathrooms today, you'll then want to arrest them." Like another esteemed forum member was doing earlier in the thread. Discussing things that have already happened is not a slippery slope.

As for Thermal's argument -- and to be clear, it's just about the argument, not the person -- you don't need that. What he's trying to do is the usual "if you don't let men into women's spaces, you're a transphobe" canard. Although admittedly, he's doing it more eloquently and subtly than the usual crop of "progressives", so kudos for that. But that's all that that blurring the lines is arguing about: trying to force framing it as somehow caring about your or your family's safety is being unreasonably against the trans, or at least a jerk to them. That's all.

But yes, we're back to the usual rolling back all arguments presented before, and you being a transphobic jerk if you disagree.

If we're being technical... a slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy, but that doesn't imply that no slopes are actually slippery. Sometimes the reasonable likelihood of an easily foreseeable negative outcome is reason enough to avoid something, even if such an outcome is not guaranteed.

It's the same deal with appeals to authority. It can be a fallacy, but in many cases, authority on a topic is absolutely a reasonable thing to appeal to.

 

[theprestige]

Appeal to the slippery slope is also not a fallacy when we're already slipping down it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

And for that matter makes me more convinced that body language theory holds more water than phrenology or graphology. Hands on hips meaning "I stand my ground" or such? Bleep off, I used it myself for a whole other reason. Lack of eye contact meaning dishonesty? Yeah, well, as a diagnosed autistic, I can tell you it can mean autism instead. Sweating meaning you hide something? Yeah, not always, based on your thyroid and usual environment, your body temperature can be different enough. My thyroid is broken in the opposite direction, but yea, it influences your preferred temperature and stuff. Etc.

Crossed arms means you're oppositional? No, it mostly means I'm cold and also I never know what to do with my arms if I don't have a table to rest them on.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Boys are given puberty blockers which will even prevent them from having "proper" vaginoplasty if they want to go that way. I mean, we even had the discussion several pages ago about getting a piece of colon as a "vagina", because there's not enough penis to invert. I mean, it may not be physically cutting off breasts, but we're talking about chemical castration, followed by a literal castration later, and not even really passing for a woman for anyone who *ahem* ever tries to go down, and not being able to achieve an orgasm ever after, as well as other life-long recurring pain and other problems. I mean, girls like Chloe Cole may be permanently disfigured, but can still achieve an orgasm, but boys don't even get the latter.

I get that you're more on the side of the disadvantaged females, and it's understandable. But the ones pushing that gender-affirming therapy hurt boys just as much.

Oh no objection, and you're right. It's a matter of the stats though - the large majority of youth taking blockers are females, the overwhelming majority getting surgeries are females getting mastectomies. Some males will get blockers, sure - and that's a problem too. But statistically speaking, it's more prevalent among females. Additionally, the physical effects of cross-sex hormones are extremely different for females than for males. If a male takes estrogen, the effects are pretty much entirely reversible when they stop taking estrogen (assuming their physically intact and produce testosterone). But if a female takes testosterone, the changes it prompts are forever changes, and there's no way to ungrow facial hair or to unlower a voice.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Honestly, I dunno. There's a whole spectrum of how to live. I don't have a set role they'd have to adhere to. It's all going on between their ears, not mine. If you'll excuse the cross thread reference, I don't really empathize. I'm sympathetic to them.

Welcome to the club. None of us know either - and there is no reasonable explanation or description that anyone has ever provided. There is no style of dress that is explicitly female, as a huge number of females don't wear skirts and heels and tons of makeup, and besides, Prince already did the lace and heels and makeup thing. There's no strictly definable set of behaviors, or hobbies, or preferences that can be described as "living as the opposite sex".

As you say, there's a whole spectrum of how to live... and none of it is exclusive to one sex or the other.

At the end of the day, when a male says they want to "live as a woman", it ends up boiling down to them wanting to enact a regressive stereotype.

 

[Thermal]

Kind of my point, innit? I don't even know what other men feel.

Ok, but that's actually making the TRA point: there's no objective standard, so some dude rocking a beard is a woman in their own mind and there's no valid argument from us against it.

So, anyway, more importantly, since you introduced that distinction, what implication would you draw from that?

I wouldn't draw one. Living as a woman is in their headspace, not mine. I don't have any standard to impose on them, and I didn't introduce any distinction that would be outside their own ears or lifestyle, whatever that may be.

 

[Thermal]

...At the end of the day, when a male says they want to "live as a woman", it ends up boiling down to them wanting to enact a regressive stereotype.

Not necessarily. Their idea of what a woman looks/acts/presents as may or may not hit a stereotype. Many, many women and men very solidly adhere to what we would call stereotypical sex roles. Why wouldn't that same spectrum be available to a trans person? Why does it have to be regressive stereotyping for them, but not for my classically feminine wife?

 

[theprestige]

Welcome to the club. None of us know either - and there is no reasonable explanation or description that anyone has ever provided. There is no style of dress that is explicitly female, as a huge number of females don't wear skirts and heels and tons of makeup, and besides, Prince already did the lace and heels and makeup thing. There's no strictly definable set of behaviors, or hobbies, or preferences that can be described as "living as the opposite sex".

As you say, there's a whole spectrum of how to live... and none of it is exclusive to one sex or the other.

At the end of the day, when a male says they want to "live as a woman", it ends up boiling down to them wanting to enact a regressive stereotype.

And or boiling down to them wanting to live as a female.