Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

There it is. The real goal is excluding trans-people.

Incorrect. The goal is excluding all males from female spaces and categories. Trans or not.

And even then, that's not the real goal.

The real goal is to enshrine in law a right for males to transcend sex segregation by fiat self-ID.

Does Mycroft share this goal? Maybe he will tell us plainly yes or no.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's evidence there is more to being male/female than just chromosomes and geneltalia.

No it isn't. That's stupid. A biological basis for gender dysphoria (which you have suggested but not demonstrated), if it were discovered, would be evidence that the brain is complex and can malfunction. That says nothing about sex.

Again, do you understand what sex even is? Because the more you talk about it, the more it seems that you don't.

Have you become a trumper?

Ah. I see. None of this is actually about transgender issues. It's all about Trump for you. I understand now.

 

[Emily's Cat]

? If I were to meet you or Rolfe or Elaedith, I would probably have no interaction with your genitalia or a chromosomal analysis. For all I know, you could be men. Or robots. I wouldn't know, because our interaction would be solely based on your social presentation.

I submit that your interaction would be at least partially based on your ability to accurately sex other humans based on our body type and facial structure. I submit that I could show up in blue jeans, converse, a ratty t-shirt, no make-up, short hair, and a baseball cap and you would 100% perceive me to be female and would interact with me under the assumption that I was female. Social presentation has ◊◊◊◊-all to do with it.

I submit that at no point have you actually perceived Eddie Izzard to be a female, and mistakenly assumed that they grew up as a female and lived their entire lives as a female. I submit that Izzard can toss on the most extravagant ball gown, get a high quality coiffed wig, and professionally applied make-up, and you would still 100% perceive them to be male.

 

[Mycroft]

That is indeed a copout.

I think it’s a copout to default to one extreme just because you think the other is unworkable.

You sure ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ implied it, and absent that, most of your prior response is nonsensical.

Not at all. I keep saying over and over again that rejecting one extreme is not a reason to default to the other extreme. You’re the one who keeps interpreting that as your side only believes in two options. I think you’re perfectly aware of the excluded middle.

Because it is. And you haven't provided any counter-argument.

Because that was never my position. I never said self-ID is the way to go, that’s a straw-man you keep trying to put on me.

Straw man. If a transwoman has to use the men's bathroom instead of the women's bathroom, they are no more excluded from daily life than men are.

Rich and poor alike are excluded from sleeping under bridges.

And I don't think you actually understand what "extreme" means. An actually extreme anti-trans position would be things like wanting anti-trans discrimination in housing and employment to be legal, which to my knowledge nobody here agrees with.

We’re going to have to disagree on that.

What other possibilities? You won't even name one!

How about letting sports organizations make their own rules rather than politicians?

God damn, but it's worthless trying to discuss this issue with you.

Then stop.

 

[Emily's Cat]

...yes, yes that was the point. We clock sex/gender very intuitively, without a genital inspection.

We clock SEX very intuitively. We don't clock gender at all - gender is a set of role and behavioral assumptions slapped on top of sex.

 

[Rolfe]

Call them Ms or she or whatever, as appropriate.

I don't call anyone he or she. I call them you. Addressing someone by an honorific is also pretty outdated, don't you think?

 

[theprestige]

How would you know?

It's definitional. You can't have a transwoman unless you have a biological male.

I see you're still struggling to internalize the idea that human sex is binary, observable, and immutable.

 

[Ziggurat]

Non-binary gender attributes don't demonstrate gender is more complex than a binary male-female?

I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about gender. Gender is made-up bull ◊◊◊◊.

Sex, on the other hand, is quite real. And sex is absolutely binary. There are many secondary sexual characteristics which are not binary (though often bimodal), but none of those other characteristics are themselves sex. The binary nature of sex is about a billion years old. It is a DEEP evolutionary adaptation. There are organisms that reproduce non-sexually, but for sexually reproducing species, it is always, always binary. There are no exceptions on earth. Even in cases where a species is a true hermaphrodite, they can be both sexes, but they cannot be a third sex. There is no third sex, because there is no third type of zygote. And there are no mammal species which exhibit actual hermaphrodism, so none of those complications (which still don't change the binary nature of sex) even apply to humans.

 

[Mycroft]

And even then, that's not the real goal.

The real goal is to enshrine in law a right for males to transcend sex segregation by fiat self-ID.

Does Mycroft share this goal? Maybe he will tell us plainly yes or no.

I keep saying over and over again that I believe trans-women are a subset of women and trans-men are a subset of men, yet you and others keep asking me to answer as if I agreed with the opposite paradigm.

I never supported sex segregation by self-ID. That's a straw-man you and others keep trying to put on me.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rich and poor alike are excluded from sleeping under bridges.

Indeed they are. You know what happens when you don't do that?

We’re going to have to disagree on that.

And still, you can't even name a position that you don't consider extreme.

How about letting sports organizations make their own rules rather than politicians?

I'm fine with that so long as those organizations don't receive taxpayer funds.

Then stop.

I probably will. You have added nothing to the discussion.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, and I can usually tell if it's a guy too, or at least strongly suspect.

But the thing is, so what? They are living as if they were a woman, so... okay by me. He is a she. It just doesn't bother me.

That's the problem with this thread. We keep.richocheting around. "The problem is the pervs who will exploit self ID access", and the next post is "I can tell if a tranny is a male" then it's "how does a woman present socially?"

Y'all are freewheeling the whole topic, and change it every time things aren't going your way. It's maddening.

It's not ricocheting, Thermal.

You're making the assertion that transgender identified males are "living as if they were a woman". That implicitly assumes that there's a "way that women live" that is 1) distinctly different from how "men" live, and 2) is separate from the experiences of our sexed bodies. You're assuming that there's some additional "gender" factor that comes into play.

I do not believe there is. There's the somatic reality of our bodies, and then there's personality and preferences at best. A male "living as a woman" is a male wearing stereotypical female clothing, perhaps stereotypical female make-up. But those external trappings do not make a "woman". Were that the case, then I rather suspect that Rolfe, Pixel, Elaedith, and myself would all be ousted from "woman island" and end up forcibly recategorized as "men". From prior discussions (assuming memory serves) all of us are pretty "ungirly". I haven't worn heels in about a decade, I haven't worn a skirt in over six years, I don't wear make-up, and the only reason my hair isn't short is because I haven't bothered to get it cut in about nine months. But I am absolutely, incontrovertibly female.

To you, as well as to many others, "living as a woman" essentially means wearing womanface and womancostume. A fair number of us in this thread end up viewing the ways that transgender identified males present themselves to be pretty offensive, frequently caricatured. It relies on stereotypes that have been the bane of our existence for most of our lives.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ about gender. Gender is made-up bull ◊◊◊◊.

We certainly disagree on that.

Sex, on the other hand, is quite real. And sex is absolutely binary. There are many secondary sexual characteristics which are not binary (though often bimodal), but none of those other characteristics are themselves sex. The binary nature of sex is about a billion years old. It is a DEEP evolutionary adaptation. There are organisms that reproduce non-sexually, but for sexually reproducing species, it is always, always binary. There are no exceptions on earth. Even in cases where a species is a true hermaphrodite, they can be both sexes, but they cannot be a third sex. There is no third sex, because there is no third type of zygote. And there are no mammal species which exhibit actual hermaphrodism, so none of those complications (which still don't change the binary nature of sex) even apply to humans.

And I don't see anything here that suggests we can't consider trans-women as a subset of women and vice-versa.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I get that. For me, it's just registering, or 'clocking' that this is a man or woman, a crude or refined personality, rambunctious or reserved, that kind of stuff. And I adjust my approach to them for their comfort while we interact. What they biologically are isn't that significant, because I'm not usually biologically interacting with them.

I doubt your introspection here. I get that you want to believe this about yourself... But I sincerely doubt that if you were to meet an obviously physically male person who was refined and soft-spoken, reserved, polite, and a really good listener, you would somehow perceive them as being a "woman" at all. You might think that they're effeminate perhaps... but I don't believe you would 'clock them as a woman'.

 

[Ziggurat]

I keep saying over and over again that I believe trans-women are a subset of women

Which means nothing, because you haven't said what a woman is. Your definition certainly isn't "adult human female", since transwomen are not female. And whatever definition you come up with, I doubt you can provide a compelling reason why it's one that society should organize around.

I never supported sex segregation by self-ID.

But you can't say on what basis we should sex segregate.

 

[Emily's Cat]

There it is. The real goal is excluding trans-people.

Nope. They're perfectly welcome to compete against their own sex.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nope. They're perfectly welcome to compete against their own sex.

Yeah, that straw man is getting quite tiresome. No one here objects to transwomen competing against men. And none of the people who want transwomen to compete against women have provided any reason for why it's unfair for them to compete against men.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, I get that. You have made your position very clear. But as I said to theprestige a while back, I find the 'why' to be as interesting question as the 'what' to do.

Is it really that interesting to you that a very large number of females don't want random strange males to be allowed to look at them while they're naked without having their prior consent? Or that a rather large number of females don't want to be exposed to random dicks and balls without consent? Or that a rather large number of females don't really want a male hanging around while we're standing there half exposed while we clean blood out of our skivvies?

 

[Ziggurat]

We certainly disagree on that.

Define gender.

And I don't see anything here that suggests we can't consider trans-women as a subset of women and vice-versa.

Define woman.

 

[Emily's Cat]

How would you know?

Are you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ with us?

TRanswomen are males who identify as their particular view of women. They are definitionally males. If they weren't males, they wouldn't be transwomen, they'd just be women.

 

[Mycroft]

Indeed they are. You know what happens when you don't do that?

Rick people end up sleeping under bridges?

And still, you can't even name a position that you don't consider extreme.

I just did. Sports organizations should make their own rules free of political interference.

I'm fine with that so long as those organizations don't receive taxpayer funds.

Because otherwise some trans-kid might get to join a sports teem?

I probably will. You have added nothing to the discussion.

We've gotten away from using autogynephilia as a reason to discriminate against people. There is that.