Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[smartcooky]

Repeatedly being told something doesn't make it correct. What matters is evidence and data.

Is does when you have been repeatedly told things that ARE correct. Changing toilet labels from men/women to male female will not stop trans-identified males from trying to use female toilets. We know this to be a fact because TRAs have stated as much, and TIMs routinely claim they are female.

If you don't like, and won't eat eggplant, calling it aubergine will not change that fact. Changing gender labels into sex labels will not alter the behaviour of people who believe gender and sex are both indistinguishable and mutable.

 

[smartcooky]

I agree with you that Transwomen are not female. The gender labels add to the non specific terms that society uses and introduces vagueness though.

I saw what you did there, and no. A woman is an "Adult Human Female" and a man is an "Adult Human Male, therefore,

Human women are female, both biologically and definitionally.
Human men are male, both biologically and definitionally.
Men who identify as women are transgender identified men (a.k.a. transwomen)
Transwomen are biologically male, therefore NOT female and NOT women

Its that simple!

 

[smartcooky]

And how did it go? Did everyone coalesce around your suggestion?

Of course they didn't.

@Thermal believes everyone in the world should follow the law on this issue that stands in his little part of the world, and if they don't, that makes them all tranny-bashing bigots in his eyes.

 

[smartcooky]

If anyone thinks that there is or ever was strict sex segregation, especially with force of law in these Great United States, they are very deeply confused.

What's with the Americentricism again? You're only a tiny percentage of the world's population, most people in the world don't give a rat's arse what your laws say.

Sex segregation in for toilets, bathrooms etc, has been public policy for well over a century in most countries of the world, even yours!

 

[d4m10n]

You seem to think that the genetics of sex is simply XX vs XY.

No, I seem to think that the people who drafted the executive order (and possibly those tasked with implementation) are thinking at that level.

You have no idea how Imane Khelif got the mark they have on their passport.

If they were sexed female at birth, then that's how they got it. Are you suggesting they transitioned at some point?

IOC did not actually consider any of that, because that wasn't the rule.

Almost everyone who has female marked on their passport got it the same way Khelif and Lin did, that is, by being perceived as female at birth. Only a tiny fraction of "female" passport holders were certified male at birth.

 

[Ziggurat]

If they were sexed female at birth, then that's how they got it.

That's an "if" you don't actually know.

Are you suggesting they transitioned at some point?

I'm suggesting both that we don't know and that it doesn't matter. The policy only cared about what was marked on the passport, not why. Are you really still confused about what was wrong with the policy? Do you still not understand that it wasn't because it properly accommodated people with DSDs?

 

[Thermal]

I don't think you properly understood what I said, and it looks like you don't think I properly understood what you said.

So let's step back for a moment to the original issue prior to our exchange, and make it simple.

Or not, since an argument you were having with another poster didn't prompt my response. What prompted my response was the standalone comment you made that Transwoman were not women, and that it was a rational statement. The reason I took issue with that statement (the original context doesn't affect it) is that "your side" tends to speak in absolute statements, which is far too simplistic an approach, IMV.

p0lka has claimed that changing labels from "women" to "female", on its own, with no other rules changes, will somehow significantly improve things. I contend that a label change alone will do nothing, that only a rules change really matters. Do you agree with p0lka? Do you agree with me? Do you disagree with both of us?

Same as I've said. I think p0lka is right, and it would do a great deal. It is much easier to point at a transwoman and say "you are not female" than it is to say "you are not a woman", for the very reasons lobbied so repeatedly in this thread.

But you are also right, sort of. We need a rule set down, not changed. The rule in most US States' is nothing but convention, and no teeth. About as worthless rule as you could have, all in. So you want to change it. To what? And with what enforcement? If you give it legal teeth, it's not a mere rule change, as you assert (which doesn't even mean anything). It is creating a clear rule/law, which is what I advocate, and have for months of arguing here.

 

[Ziggurat]

Or not, since an argument you were having with another poster didn't prompt my response. What prompted my response was the standalone comment you made that Transwoman were not women, and that it was a rational statement. The reason I took issue with that statement (the original context doesn't affect it) is that "your side" tends to speak in absolute statements, which is far too simplistic an approach, IMV.

I see. Your response was even more pointless than I thought, because your own interpretation of my post was far too simplistic. Oh, the irony.

Here’s the thing: it absolutely is a rational statement, and there really is no ambiguity about that. That actually is absolute. Whether it’s correct (which isn’t the same thing as rational) dependent on the definition of “woman” one is using, and not everyone uses a definition where it is correct. But that’s irrelevant to whether or not it’s rational. It is. So is the statement “transwomen are women”. That is rational for exactly the same reason. I disagree with it because I disagree with the definition where it’s true, but that doesn’t make it irrational. And I never claimed or suggested it was.

Same as I've said. I think p0lka is right, and it would do a great deal. It is much easier to point at a transwoman and say "you are not female" than it is to say "you are not a woman", for the very reasons lobbied so repeatedly in this thread.

The ease of saying that has nothing to do with anything. Nobody is uncertain whether to allow males into female bathrooms because of uncertainty about whether “women” refers to sex or gender. Either people want males to be able to enter female bathrooms, or they don’t. Everyone knows that’s what this is about. Nobody decides based on labels. Changing the label from “women” to “female” won’t make someone previously OK with males entering female bathrooms suddenly not OK with it. Nobody is like that.

But you are also right, sort of. We need a rule set down, not changed.

Sort of? No, completely. A rules change is all we need, the labels don’t matter.

The rule in most US States' is nothing but convention, and no teeth.

And that will continue to be the case even if we relabel it “female”, which means nothing changes. Because saying a male isn’t a woman, or isn’t female, never did anything if there are no rules behind it. And if there are rules behind it, then it’s the rule which makes it easy to include or exclude a person, not the label.

So you want to change it. To what? And with what enforcement?

In publicly owned venues, it should be strict sex segregation, enforceable by trespass citations. In private venues, owners should be allowed to sex segregate without running afoul of any local laws.

If you give it legal teeth, it's not a mere rule change,

Laws ARE rules. They are a particular kind of rule, but they are still rules. The set of rule changes includes (but is not limited to) changes to the law.

 

[d4m10n]

That's an "if" you don't actually know.

It is possible that Khelif's relatives are all lying in interviews about her birth and upbringing, but this isn't the conspiracy theory subforum.

Are you really still confused about what was wrong with the policy?

A passport based policy will get sex wrong whenever it is wrong on the passport as the result of being wrong on the birth certificate.

What could possibly be confusing about that?

Do you still not understand that it wasn't because it properly accommodated people with DSDs?

Any policy designed to protect the female category in sport is going to have to protect that category against individuals having certain specific DSD diagnoses and also from individuals suffering from GID.

Well-designed criteria will screen out people like Imane Khelif and also people like Lia Thomas.

 

[Ziggurat]

A passport based policy will get sex wrong whenever it is wrong on the passport as the result of being wrong on the birth certificate.

What could possibly be confusing about that?

I'm confused why you left out all the other possible reasons the sex on the passport could be wrong.

Any policy designed to protect the female category in sport is going to have to protect that category against individuals having certain specific DSD diagnoses and also from individuals suffering from GID.

Well-designed criteria will screen out people like Imane Khelif and also people like Lia Thomas.

And the IOC policy for 2024 boxing did neither. It would have allowed Lia Thomas to compete as a woman boxer, had be been a boxing competitor. But what was it you said about complaints about the IOC policy? Let's recall:

Secondly, I can recall plenty of complaining in this very thread when the IOC allowed males to compete in Olympic boxing based on their perceived sex at birth

That's not an accurate characterization of either the IOC policy (which doesn't care about birth certificates) or (more importantly in this context) the objections to it.

 

[d4m10n]

That's not an accurate characterization of either the IOC policy (which doesn't care about birth certificates)

To the extent relevant data fields on passports are originally drawn from birth certificates, IOC 2024 policy "cares" about both. As mentioned earlier, nearly everyone with an "F" on their passport got it from their birth certificate rather than via an alternative process (such as as a GRC in the UK).

That's not an accurate characterization of…the objections to it.

The most carefully researched articles I've seen objecting to the participation of folks like Khelif and Lin were rooted in the fact that they underwent male puberty as the result of their genetic complement, but IOC policy failed to screen for this possibility. Do you have other objections in mind?

 

[d4m10n]

I'm confused why you left out all the other possible reasons the sex on the passport could be wrong.

Because we were—just at that moment—talking about athletes who were (incorrectly) assigned female at birth rather than later in life.

 

[Ziggurat]

To the extent relevant data fields on passports are originally drawn from birth certificates,

But they often aren't. Are you confused about that?

 

[p0lka]

Is does when you have been repeatedly told things that ARE correct. Changing toilet labels from men/women to male female will not stop trans-identified males from trying to use female toilets. We know this to be a fact because TRAs have stated as much, and TIMs routinely claim they are female.

If you don't like, and won't eat eggplant, calling it aubergine will not change that fact. Changing gender labels into sex labels will not alter the behaviour of people who believe gender and sex are both indistinguishable and mutable.

er

Repeatedly being told something doesn't make it correct. What matters is evidence and data.

 

[p0lka]

I saw what you did there, and no.

What do you mean by 'i saw what you did there'? This thread is weird, some posters are acting like it's a point scoring thing and it's a imaginary war with an other side. I'm just arguing my position.

A woman is an "Adult Human Female" and a man is an "Adult Human Male, therefore,

Human women are female, both biologically and definitionally.
Human men are male, both biologically and definitionally.
Men who identify as women are transgender identified men (a.k.a. transwomen)
Transwomen are biologically male, therefore NOT female and NOT women

Its that simple!

Your first 3 statements are incorrect, as reality says that gender labels can be distinct from sex labels...just look around at society for the evidence.
Your 4th statement makes no sense, go check with reality.
Your 5th statement I agree with, assuming the normal definitions of transwomen and transmen are held, no one can change their sex with present technology. EDIT: they can take on whatever gender role they want though, as long as it's not denying reality.

EDIT2 I missed an opportunity to state premise incorrect, conclusion ignorable dammit, did it now though.

 

[theprestige]

Because we were—just at that moment—talking about athletes who were (incorrectly) assigned female at birth rather than later in life.

I traced this particular conversation back, and there didn't seem to be such a moment.

 

[Tomboy]

gender labels can be distinct from sex labels..

They can, I suppose, but they don't have to be. Insisting they must be distinct just seems to muddy the waters more, in my opinion. I can be a tomboy and eschew traditional female gender roles while still referring to myself as a woman, and very very few people will be confused as to my biological sex. A female horse is a filly. A female human is a woman, regardless of how she acts or what she wears.

Frankly, I'd much rather get rid of the concept of gender roles entirely. A biological male who wears a dress is still a man. A biological female who works in construction is still a woman. I want to break down walls instead of reinforcing them. I want to break people out of those annoying little categorical boxes that has society determining what is appropriate for men and what's appropriate for women. (I get that gender stereotypes will never go away completely, and some of them exist for good reason, but that's probably a different conversation.)

EDIT: they can take on whatever gender role they want though, as long as it's not denying reality.

What's an example of a gender role that would deny reality? Genuinely curious. A biological male wearing a dress and insisting that it makes him either female OR a woman is, in my opinion, denying reality, but the reality it's denying is biological sex, not a gender role.

 

[theprestige]

What do you mean by 'i saw what you did there'? This thread is weird, some posters are acting like it's a point scoring thing and it's a imaginary war with an other side. I'm just arguing my position.


Your first 3 statements are incorrect, as reality says that gender labels can be distinct from sex labels...just look around at society for the evidence.

I have looked around at society. Based on the evidence, I've come to the conclusion that when gender labels are distinct from sex labels, they become functionally meaningless.

The reality is that nowadays any practical case of "being a woman" is in fact a case of "being female".

Your 4th statement makes no sense, go check with reality.
Your 5th statement I agree with, assuming the normal definitions of transwomen and transmen are held, no one can change their sex with present technology. EDIT: they can take on whatever gender role they want though, as long as it's not denying reality.

Gender roles decoupled from sex are functionally meaningless. Saying that a person can take on whatever gender role they want is true, but also irrelevant.

 

[d4m10n]

I traced this particular conversation back, and there didn't seem to be such a moment.

Search for "Khelif and Lin" upthread.

But they often aren't.

In the case of Imane Khelif and Lin Yu Ting they were unless the IOC is lying about the circumstances of their births.

This is true of all three winners of the women's 800m in Rio 2016 (Semenya, Niyonsaba, Wambui) as well.

I'm tempted to call all five of these athletes transgender because their subjective sense of identity (female) does not match their biological sex (male) but none of them appear to be gender dysphoric and none of them have a history of transitioning, at least so far as anyone knows.

Terminology aside, I'd say that international sporting bodies need to implement genetic testing in order to keep athletes like these (along with athletes like Thomas and Hubbard, who are openly and undoubtedly transgender) out of the protected sex category in elite competitions. Do we disagree about this policy conclusion, or are we merely quibbling about how to get there?

 

[Ziggurat]

In the case of Imane Khelif and Lin Yu Ting they were unless the IOC is lying about the circumstances of their births.

I doubt the IOC ever even looked into their births, since it's not part of the IOC rules, no documentation of birth was ever required, and the IOC never claimed to have such evidence. As far as I can tell, the IOC just accepted their word for it. Which means we can't take it as evidence, even if the IOC thought they were telling the truth. But more importantly, it doesn't even matter. See below.

Terminology aside, I'd say that international sporting bodies need to implement genetic testing in order to keep athletes like these (along with athletes like Thomas and Hubbard, who are openly and undoubtedly transgender) out of the protected sex category in elite competitions. Do we disagree about this policy conclusion, or are we merely quibbling about how to get there?

I agree on using genetic testing to verify eligibility. But we weren't quibbling about how to get there. We were debating whether you can separate the DSD issue from the trans issue. I say we can. Most DSDs are still clearly one sex or the other, so handling them according to that sex is appropriate. The truly edge cases are so rare that we can handle them separately as edge cases, and do not need to include them in the trans debate.

And this is an example where it's clear that they are male and should be treated as male. It is not an edge case. We agree on that. Whether Imane was raised as a girl because of a DSD or claimed to be a woman because he's trans doesn't matter, he's still absolutely male and thus should not qualify. A policy designed for trans individuals (ie, segregate by sex and not gender) works here, we need not even consider DSDs in this case as it would make no difference. So I maintain that your conflating of DSD and trans issues is still unwarranted.