Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[p0lka]

Destroy the roles. Don't destroy our ability to talk about our sexed bodies and experiences, and don't deny humans the ability to distinguish our species from others when discussing sex.

Otherwise it's bass-ackwards.

*Note, I'm going to momentarily step away from my general position of not using he/she/man/woman/etc. because this won't make sense otherwise and will take up five times as much space

It's a social construct that women do the dishes. That's a sex-based role that was put on us all by a society in which men were out working all day and women were expected to mind the home. In many cultures, this was tied with women being prohibited from having jobs and incomes of their own. Most of us realize that this is a convention, and that men are physically capable of doing the dishes - it's not like their hands shrivel up and fall off if soap touches them in the presence of a plate after all. So it's not a literal division, unlike gestation and childbirth which is.

If society tells you it's a sex based role and you realize it's a convention and that males can do the dishes after all, what does that say?

The effort underway when I was growing up was to mitigate the social aspect of our sexes, to burn gender roles to the ground. The effort was to combat the stereotypes and the presumptions that went into those sex-based roles so that they could be available to anyone. In fairness, it was a fairly one-sided approach, since for the most part, it was women who had prohibitions and expectations that prevented us from being able to fully participate in society. But there's a fair bit that went the other direction - like considerable effort in child custody to ensure that fathers could gain full custody if it were better for the kids. In short, the effort was to promote that anyone can do the dishes.

Ah ok, nice.

The modern trans movement has turned it upside down - and what you're saying here is not all that far from what they parrot. They take those stereotypes and use them as prescriptive. If a young male likes dolls and reading and is quiet and enjoys sewing, instead of just letting him take part in pastimes that he enjoys, now that gets interpreted as him being "gender nonconforming" and it means that he's actually a girl. The current trans movement is busy trying to force people to choose which of the two restrictive roles they want to conform to.

Traditionalist: The women do the dishes.
Liberal: Anyone can do the dishes.
Trans Activist: Whoever does the dishes is the woman.

Just swapping out "woman" with "female" doesn't actually fix the problem. It doesn't eradicate the coercive social roles in any way. And much as you and I might wish it were so... it also doesn't clarify the issue in the US with respect to intimate spaces, services, and sports. We're going to need a UK-style legal ruling for that, and that's going to give female humans back the word "women".

Transgender as a concept irritates me. It seems like male or female trans want to conform to a gender stereotype role, rather than get rid of gender roles altogether. It's like they want to keep traditional social roles rather than progress to the future.

 

[p0lka]

There are transwomen posters on the other forum I belong to who object just as strongly to being described as male as they do to being described as men. Even putting the entirely unnecessary adjective 'biological' in front of the word doesn't mollify them.

Ask them if you can draw blood from them.

 

[p0lka]

So you grew up with: first women prime minister, Boy George, Annie Lennox, David Bowie...

Yeah it was an ok time musically. Boy George especially good at not conforming to what society says.

 

[Ziggurat]

As a little kid it was confusing that people just did things and when I asked why, the answer is that it's because it's supposed to be that way. Pink versus Blue in shops was a big thing, why can't you just buy whatever you want?. Social pressure to conform to a gender role was and is everywhere.
Growing up I met various people that refused to conform to that social pressure, I don't think any of them mentioned biological sex though, it was nothing to do with it, it was all about the social pressure to conform.

Biological sex had everything to do with it. The pressure to conform was precisely because the expected behavior was linked to biological sex. Absent sex, there would have been no separate expectations to conform to. All babies would just be expected to wear green. Now, I'm not opposed to getting rid of those expectations, or even just relaxing them. But the expectations came from sex, they had everything to do with sex, even if they were social constructs sitting on top of biological sex. Without that underpinning biological sex, they wouldn't make any sense to begin with, and couldn't have been socially enforced. You can have sex without gender roles, but you cannot have gender roles without sex.

And the TRAs aren't trying to get rid of gender roles and expectations. The TRA's want to keep those expectations, and in fact reinforce them. Because that's how they signal that they're "really" a woman or a man, even though their sex doesn't match. In a world where gender expectations evaporate, all they have is their sex, but they don't want their sex, they want to pretend to be another sex. Gender roles allow for that fiction. It gives them a signifier of the opposite sex since they can't signify that with their actual sex. Without such signifiers, they can't maintain the fiction. But make no mistake: they fiction they are aiming for is that they are the opposite sex. Which is why substituting "female" for "woman" won't do anything.

 

[theprestige]

But make no mistake: they fiction they are aiming for is that they are the opposite sex. Which is why substituting "female" for "woman" won't do anything.

In short, what trans-identifying males want is everything our society reserves for females.

As long as we uphold those reservations, TRAs will continue to deny the reality of biological sex. Conditioning those reservations on the reality of biological sex forestalls TRA progress towards their goal. But this state of affairs persists as long as policymakers and the general public are not ideologically captured by biological denialism.

 

[p0lka]

The nuance that I think @polka is missing is that the modern trans rights movement is a movement aimed at sex segregation.

Modern trans rights activists (TRAs) have taken the "gender nonconformity" movement as an intermediate step, and took sex nonconformity as the end goal.

Even the term "gender nonconformity" should tell us something: There was a perception of binary gender linked to binary sex, and thus the possibility that someone could deviate from conforming to the gender role implied by their sex. But I digress.

Thanks for that. Oh so they are trying to treat gender and sex as the same thing? That won't work out well for them if that's the case. Sex nonconformity would have to be assessed with biological bloodtests and the like, whereas gender nonconformity would be assessed with 'how do you feel?'.

The modern trans rights movement is aimed squarely at biological sex, and sex segregation. The modern TRA demand, in a nutshell, is that men should be entitled to override sex segregation whenever they want. As much as polka wishes it would, calling men "males" won't make this demand go away.

I keep being told this with no evidence, I disagree.
Arguing about gender is pointless it's vague. Arguing about sex is easily demonstrable using biology.

---

Another nuance that I think I've been missing is, trans-affirming medicine* and transgender presentation don't make any logical sense, in the context of trans rights rhetoric.

In TRA theory, transwomen are already female, by fiat self-ID.

They are not though, so axiom wrong, conclusion ignorable.

If a trans-identifying male is female simply by virtue of so identifying, then why does he need hormone treatment? He already manifests a female hormone profile. Maybe not the same hormone profile as a biological female, but there's nothing wrong with that. His hormone profile is female, because he says it is.

So why does the trans-identifying male need hormone treatment? Why does he need surgery of any kind? He's already female, right?

Of course he's not already female. He knows it. We know it. Trans rights activists sure the hell know it. That's why TRAs push so hard for trans-affirming medicine* for minors. It's why they push so hard for a right to trans-affirming medicine* in their health insurance. The trans-identifying male knows he's not female. He knows he wants to be female, both physically and socially. And he knows that social transition must depend in part on conforming to certain physical attributes that he does not innately possess. So he ends up trying to force the social transition, to force people to pretend he's female even when everyone knows he isn't. And he tries to force the physical transition in support of this, through stereotypical attire, hormone-shifting, and surgery to remove/reduce/replace outward physical indicators of his biological sex.

---

All of which to say, polka's idea of replacing "man" with "male" won't work, because the battleground is sex segregation. The TRA propaganda is aimed at sex segregation - not overturning it, but giving men the right to override it whenever they want.

The next time a TRA tells you trans-affirming medicine* is a necessity, ask them why, if transwomen are already women?

It would definitely work, especially in the instance you've said.

 

[Agatha]

I keep being told this with no evidence, I disagree.

Dr Theodore (Beth) Upton claimed at the employment tribunal Peggie v NHS Fife that he is "biologically female", an astonishing claim for someone educated as a doctor.

Jonathan (India) Willoughby claims to be biologically female (even to the extent of claiming to have a cervix and offering to show it on TV, which suggests he doesn't actually know what a cervix is).

Having colonised the word "woman" and attempted to decouple it from the "adult human female" definition, TRAs are now trying to claim the word "female" along with women's single-sex spaces.

 

[Ziggurat]

I keep being told this with no evidence, I disagree.

You have been given evidence, you keep ignoring it. Transwomen already claim they are female.

Arguing about gender is pointless it's vague. Arguing about sex is easily demonstrable using biology.

But this was never actually about gender to begin with. It has always actually been about sex. Gender is just a rhetorical smokescreen, but nobody actually believes any of it. And being wrong has nothing to do with it either. Proving them wrong will make no difference, because it was never about the facts. It doesn't matter if you're wrong if you have enough power. You are under a serious misapprehension that showing them to be wrong will make a difference. It will make no difference whatsoever.

 

[p0lka]

Biological sex had everything to do with it. The pressure to conform was precisely because the expected behavior was linked to biological sex. Absent sex, there would have been no separate expectations to conform to. All babies would just be expected to wear green. Now, I'm not opposed to getting rid of those expectations, or even just relaxing them. But the expectations came from sex, they had everything to do with sex, even if they were social constructs sitting on top of biological sex. Without that underpinning biological sex, they wouldn't make any sense to begin with, and couldn't have been socially enforced. You can have sex without gender roles, but you cannot have gender roles without sex.

Yeah I agree, anthropology wise, sex determined roles initially. But then over time as society/culture got a grip, the roles became social constructs sitting on top of sex. The moment that happened is when you have a fact and a variable arguing with itself.

And the TRAs aren't trying to get rid of gender roles and expectations. The TRA's want to keep those expectations, and in fact reinforce them. Because that's how they signal that they're "really" a woman or a man, even though their sex doesn't match. In a world where gender expectations evaporate, all they have is their sex, but they don't want their sex, they want to pretend to be another sex. Gender roles allow for that fiction. It gives them a signifier of the opposite sex since they can't signify that with their actual sex. Without such signifiers, they can't maintain the fiction. But make no mistake: they fiction they are aiming for is that they are the opposite sex. Which is why substituting "female" for "woman" won't do anything.

Trying to fit into a gender role is ridiculous to me.

 

[d4m10n]

It's urgent because trans-identified males urgently want the things our society reserves for females.

Take away the part about "society reserves" and mere things lose their appeal. If everyone on the island was a trans woman, there would be little to zero gender affirmation to be found in using the women's restroom, competing in women's leagues, or having a gender marker on one's identity documents. The whole point of the exercise is to be recognized and validated as the genuine article by broader society.

Having colonised the word "woman" and attempted to decouple it from the "adult human female" definition, TRAs are now trying to claim the word "female" along with women's single-sex spaces.

Thanks to the new search function, here is another example.

 

[p0lka]

Dr Theodore (Beth) Upton claimed at the employment tribunal Peggie v NHS Fife that he is "biologically female", an astonishing claim for someone educated as a doctor.

Prove it, blood test.

Jonathan (India) Willoughby claims to be biologically female (even to the extent of claiming to have a cervix and offering to show it on TV, which suggests he doesn't actually know what a cervix is).

Prove it, xray.

Having colonised the word "woman" and attempted to decouple it from the "adult human female" definition, TRAs are now trying to claim the word "female" along with women's single-sex spaces.

If someone says something that denies reality, say prove it.
When they don't it's QED.

 

[Rolfe]

Prove it, blood test.

Prove it, xray.

If someone says something that denies reality, say prove it.
When they don't it's QED.

Just who, exactly, are you expecting to say "prove it", in this context?

The trans person will merely trot out some concept of "biologically female" that invokes the hormone concentrations they have achieved by taking pills, or else, like one I saw on Twitter, say that since he is female (self-defined) and he is also biological, he is a biological female.

Nevertheless, you need someone in a position to say the "prove it" part, and to enforce that, and to tell the trans person that he can't have what he wants unless the results are satisfactory. Satisfactory to whom, anyway? What is the point of all this?

 

[p0lka]

Just who, exactly, are you expecting to say "prove it", in this context?

If it's a context in which sex matters, then the person that's arguing with the person that's denying reality.

The trans person will merely trot out some concept of "biologically female" that invokes the hormone concentrations they have achieved by taking pills, or else, like one I saw on Twitter, say that since he is female (self-defined) and he is also biological, he is a biological female.

Nevertheless, you need someone in a position to say the "prove it" part, and to enforce that, and to tell the trans person that he can't have what he wants unless the results are satisfactory. Satisfactory to whom, anyway? What is the point of all this?

Yeah people trot out nonsense all the time and I don't care unless it affects people or they're arguing against factual definitions like sex.

Edit: re the twitter person, if someone has to argue semantically then they've already lost the argument.

 

[Rolfe]

But they do argue semantically, all the time. I'm still at a loss to know who is going to require that any trans person involved in an argument takes a DNA test or has an x-ray or whatever else proof you have in mind.

 

[theprestige]

Thanks for that. Oh so they are trying to treat gender and sex as the same thing?

No they are not. They are trying to treat sex as something mutable by self-perception.

That won't work out well for them if that's the case.

It's been working out surprisingly, depressingly well in recent times.

Sex nonconformity would have to be assessed with biological bloodtests and the like, whereas gender nonconformity would be assessed with 'how do you feel?'.

Actually both can be assessed in most cases by direct observation. In fact, in almost all cases - including the cases of most interest to TRAs - biological sex can be assessed by simple observation.

And gender nonconformity is entirely a matter of outward expression, not inward feelings. Because that's all gender is - outward expression. Nobody cares whether or not you conform in your own inner life. Not employers, not landlords, not anybody.

I keep being told this with no evidence, I disagree.

There's plenty of evidence. Lia Thomas already competes as a female. Males are already enjoying the entitlement, in California, to be housed in prisons for females. Simple and direct observation of biological sex simply does not matter to these people.

Arguing about gender is pointless it's vague. Arguing about sex is easily demonstrable using biology.

You'd think, but that's not the case. Importantly, TRAs are doing an end-run around biological sex, and trying to establish psychological sex as determinative. They've expended a lot of effort to sway public opinion this way, and to gain influence over policymakers on this matter.

They are not though, so axiom wrong, conclusion ignorable.

You'd think, but that's not been the case. And we can't ignore the conclusions that have already entered into public policy.

It would definitely work, especially in the instance you've said.

We've already seen that it does not work in practice.

You seem to believe that you're the only person to ever think of appealing to the obvious, the biological fact. This has already been tried. It has already been countered. We are now fighting to reverse the horrifying, anti-fact, anti-science trend. A trend that has already manifested in government policy and medical practice.

Your understanding of this issue, such as it is, lags behind our conversation by at least two decades, probably more.

 

[theprestige]

Take away the part about "society reserves" and mere things lose their appeal. If everyone on the island was a trans woman, there would be little to zero gender affirmation to be found in using the women's restroom, competing in women's leagues, or having a gender marker on one's identity documents. The whole point of the exercise is to be recognized and validated as the genuine article by broader society.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Except, perhaps, that you advocate abolishing sex segregation as a solution to the problem of trans-sexual identity.

 

[Rolfe]

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Except, perhaps, that you advocate abolishing sex segregation as a solution to the problem of trans-sexual identity.

No, he's more or less articulating the cartoon that shows three naked men with pastel-coloured hair and genitalia on display, in a changing room labelled "women", looking at each other and saying "well, this sucks."

He's saying that if there are no actual women and no actual men, the trans people would not be happy because it's all about affirmation. They need men's spaces where they don't go and women's spaces where they do go, for that.

 

[Aber]

Arguing about sex is easily demonstrable using biology.

Why do you thinks TRAs heavily promote "sex is a spectrum"?

 

[Ziggurat]

If it's a context in which sex matters, then the person that's arguing with the person that's denying reality.

They don't need to. Because again, this has nothing to do with facts. They don't need to convince you that they are right, they only need to get more power than you. If they have more power, being wrong is irrelevant.

Edit: re the twitter person, if someone has to argue semantically then they've already lost the argument.

It isn't an argument in the first place. It's a fight. And they can win a fight even while being wrong. You can feel proud that you've exposed their logical errors while they feel proud they've exposed their genitals to the opposite sex. Debate club proofs won't stop them.

 

[d4m10n]

They don't need to convince you that they are right, they only need to get more power than you. If they have more power, being wrong is irrelevant.

Seems to me you are rejecting the philosophical principle of charity^WP in favor of assuming that any opposing interlocutors are inherently irrational. I don't think that is a wise approach, since it fails to explain articles such as this one, which appear to be written in good faith even if they are mistaken on some pretty fundamental issues.