Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[dann]

I've heard enough from trans-activists to know that when someone identifies as a woman, for example, they do not have to adhere to any particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways, or anything else. They can pretty much do and act however they please while retaining their gender identity as a woman.

I am not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that women (since the vast majority of women identify as women) should have to adhere to a particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways, or something else? And that it's wrong to think that they do not have to do that?
And that, if they won't adhere to a particular type of presentation etc., then they should not be allowed to retain their gender identity as women?

Does it mean that women shouldn't be allowed to retain their gender identity as women if, for instance, they wear trousers, cut their hair short, speak in a gruff voice, marry other women, are construction workers or don't sit down when peeing?

 

[theprestige]

I am not sure that I understand your point. Are you saying that women (since the vast majority of women identify as women) should have to adhere to a particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways, or something else? And that it's wrong to think that they do not have to do that?
And that, if they won't adhere to a particular type of presentation etc., then they should not be allowed to retain their gender identity as women?

Does it mean that women shouldn't be allowed to retain their gender identity as women if, for instance, they wear trousers, cut their hair short, speak in a gruff voice, marry other women, are construction workers or don't sit down when peeing?

It means gender identity is functionally meaningless in terms of public policy. Once you've protected gender expression from discrimination in hiring, housing, etc., your work on gender equality is done.

The question of sex segregation in public policy is a separate issue entirely. And it turns out that when you examine the question of trans rights in public policy, beyond the issue of discrimination, it all turns out to be about biological sex, and overriding sex segregation.

(Some) men (and their allies) are demanding an entitlement to override sex segregation in women's sports whenever they want. To override sex segregation in women's prisons, whenever they want. To override sex segregation in spas, in locker rooms, in public restrooms. Whenever they want.

None of that has any practical relationship to gender expression. Nor should it!

 

[Brainster]

ETA: And furthermore, why do you think that males who have transgender identities should be granted safe spaces from males?

Rem acu tetigisti!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rem acu tetigisti!

Today I learned that an old phrase has an even older form!

 

[Brainster]

Today I learned that an old phrase has an even older form!

Read it in an old PG Wodehouse novel with Bertie and Jeeves, but one so seldom gets a chance to use it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Read it in an old PG Wodehouse novel with Bertie and Jeeves, but one so seldom gets a chance to use it.

Am I right in assuming that Jeeves is the one who says it?

 

[d4m10n]

The room could have been the All Manly Man Board of Directors Lounge, and White would have been found guilty of criminal trespass on the identical grounds.

This is obviously untrue, since the grounds he was convicted on rested on certain rooms being "separately secured or occupied" on the basis of sex.

The illegality centers around the seperate nature, not the reason for the seperate nature, which, as a private club, could be anything.

I'm not seeing the part of the decision where the court's reasoning turned on whether the club was open to the public or only open to members. Is that also in the section labeled IDGAF?

 

[theprestige]

Hm. So since you are so set on the limitations of strict definitions, a minor human female is not allowed in a women's room. And I guess so is a little boy going in with their mother. And male caregivers, cleaning and maintenance people...

What's that you say? "Oh, it's not strict, there are exceptions made willy-nilly. You know, just whenever you like the reason." Yeah, I hear you.

Defining transwomen as "men who want to be in the same intimate communal spaces as female human children" was probably the wrong direction for you to take this.

 

[Brainster]

Am I right in assuming that Jeeves is the one who says it?

Good guess. From Joy in the Morning (sometimes published as Jeeves in the Morning) chapter 4:

‘His idea being to collect a parcel cheap before the many-headed can horn in and spoil the market?’
‘Precisely, sir. Rem acu tetigisti.’
‘Rem—?’

Acu tetigisti, sir. A Latin expression. Literally, it means “You have touched the matter with a needle,” but a more idiomatic rendering would be—’
‘Put my finger on the nub?’
‘Exactly, sir.’

However, Bertie did learn from the experience, and in Jeeves and the Feudal Spirit he quipped:

It was enough. I saw that, as always, he had tetigisti-ed the rem

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Are you saying that women should have to adhere to a particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways, or something else? And that it's wrong to think that they do not have to do that?

No, I'm not saying any of these things. I'm saying that women (adult human females) do not have to adhere to a particular type of presentation, mode of dress, speech patterns, expectations of behavior, roles, life pathways.

...the vast majority of women identify as women...

So here, you're using two different words. Or at least two different definitions for the same word. The first instance of "women" is used to indicate biological sex, and the second instance is to indicate gender expression. You seem to be referencing cis-gender women here.

My question to you would be about the second sense of the word "women" that you used to indicate a gender identity. What exactly does that word reference? How is it different than the word "man" as far as a gender identity?
If, as you say, women should not have to adhere to any sorts of norms of prescribed behaviors, what exactly is the word pointing to? An empty concept? What is the word "man" pointing to when used to indicate a gender identity? Another empty concept? If so, how are the two empty concepts different? Is there an adjective that can be allied to a gender identity of "woman" that can't be applied to a gender identity of "man"? Or are there any properties that one has that the other does not?

When using the words "man" and "woman" to indicate sex, it's easy to highlight the differences what they point to. How do we do the same for the words when they're being used to indicate gender identities?

 

[Louden Wilde]

Because human behaviour is complex and social mores naturally evolve over time, generally becoming more inclusive of human differences. From what you've found on the Internet below I think both of these things are unsettling to you. You appear to engage in a lot of black and white thinking on this and other topics. The most likely explanation is that you are just a crusty old person, but perhaps you have always had a brain that struggles with empathy. Either way, it must make your life difficult at times, though you probably blame everyone else for these difficulties!

...

The acceptance of transgender people seems to be following a similar arc to that of gay people, though as they are at a more extreme end of a bell curve and far less prevalent in society it will probably be easier to stigmatise them for longer. I think we will eventually find more physical differences in the brains of people who feel they are a different gender to their biological sex and maybe even understand more about how gender is encoded in the brain.

No - broadly speaking, TWs/TIMs are never going to be accepted in the way they want to be accepted. Activists have made it clear that "Trans women are women" (corollary = that "trans" is an adjective modifying woman - similar to "tall" or "white") and that they should be considered as such in all circumstances. However, in long term intimate relationships, they will never be thought of as women by lesbians or (more importantly) by heterosexual males. Similarly transmen will never be thought of as men by gay men or straight women. This is the contradiction at the core of the movement (i.e. that they want to be treated as the other sex, but cannot change sex).

Yes, human behavior is complex (as is behavior of other mammals), but a brain in a male body is by definition a male brain. Activists have (incoherently) challenged the definition of the sexes, but are left with the untenable positions of suggesting they evolved independently in humans or creationism.

Empathy for these folks can ultimately only be getting them to accept their sex. The movement as it stands now is doomed - it's just a matter of how much damage it does before it dies (to girls and women, kids who believe transitioning is the answer to their mental health issues, the Democratic party in the US, public faith in science).

 

[Louden Wilde]

Boy I hope you understand how that could be offensive to (actual) women. Girls and women all over the world are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their sex, not identity.

 

[lionking]

No - broadly speaking, TWs/TIMs are never going to be accepted in the way they want to be accepted. Activists have made it clear that "Trans women are women" (corollary = that "trans" is an adjective modifying woman - similar to "tall" or "white") and that they should be considered as such in all circumstances. However, in long term intimate relationships, they will never be thought of as women by lesbians or (more importantly) by heterosexual males. Similarly transmen will never be thought of as men by gay men or straight women. This is the contradiction at the core of the movement (i.e. that they want to be treated as the other sex, but cannot change sex).

Yes, human behavior is complex (as is behavior of other mammals), but a brain in a male body is by definition a male brain. Activists have (incoherently) challenged the definition of the sexes, but are left with the untenable positions of suggesting they evolved independently in humans or creationism.

Empathy for these folks can ultimately only be getting them to accept their sex. The movement as it stands now is doomed - it's just a matter of how much damage it does before it dies (to girls and women, kids who believe transitioning is the answer to their mental health issues, the Democratic party in the US, public faith in science).

Well spoken Louden.

 

[Louden Wilde]

My point was that if someone believes it is obvious that males and females need to be segregated for the safety of the females, then that person should be asking that society addresses why males are so dangerous, rather than just shrugging their shoulders and disappearing off into the nearest "safe space". But I suppose it is also possible to believe that it is an innate and immutable part of maleness and nothing can be done about it.

It's pretty clear it's innate - and almost certainly undergirded by the dramatic asymmetry in reproductive costs to females vs males.

 

[catsmate]

Boy I hope you understand how that could be offensive to (actual) women. Girls and women all over the world are oppressed/discriminated against on the basis of their sex, not identity.

Ah yes, the "(actual)" women......
While I accept that the TERFs and transphobes might not like the image, and how it undermines there prejudices, all the women I've shown it too, cis and trans, were amused or appreciative.

 

[Matthew Best]

"there" should be "their"
"too" should be "to"

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

In the 60's and 70's, the "sexual revolution" started dismantling a lot of sexual taboos, to become, as you say, "more inclusive". It's often forgotten today, but one of the things that some people were trying to dismantle was the taboo against pedophilia.

That taboo managed to survive. From a purely objective viewpoint, this is a demonstration that the pattern of "liberalization" isn't always inevitable. From a more subjective standpoint, though, do you think it's a good thing or a bad thing that this taboo remains?

Given the documented long-term harm sexual, physical and emotion abuse of people (particularly of young people) has, it is clear why paedophilia is not going to be accepted.

Nature is unfathomably complex. Many of the human created problems in the world have at their root us applying rules derived from our simplified and often ignorant models of reality too rigidly and/or too broadly and being unwilling to update them with new information.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You're so very, very close Ivor.

Let's assume that every single person who expresses gender dysphoria has an actual neurological or psychological issue with their perception - that they genuinely and completely believe that they are in the wrong body and that their body should be different.

Even if we accept that premise... does it then follow that their objectively false belief should be encouraged?

If someone has BIID (as you reference above) do you think doctors should cut off the limbs that the patient thinks are wrong? Should society support and encourage people to cut off appendages that they think shouldn't be theirs?

If someone has anorexia do you think doctors should prescribe ozempic and weight-loss programs for them? Should society support and encourage people with anorexia to lose enough weight to feel comfortable and happy in their bodies?

You appear to have missed where I explain this, perhaps because it doesn't fit in with your mental model of how the world should be.

What if all your preferred options of management lead to objectively worse outcomes than letting the individual live the life as they want?

For example, what if the person who thinks her left leg doesn't belong to her just keeps on trying to cut it off herself or injure it so badly it has to be removed? What would you do if you were trying to help such a person? Just double-down on your model of how the world should be?

I also gave the example of the NHS in an area of the UK with a large Muslim population providing circumcision for the male children of people who are so convinced by their cultural/spiritual beliefs that they are compelled to have their male children mutilated. Better to do it in a clean and hygienic environment by someone who knows what they are doing and with proper follow-up wouldn't you agree?

Anorexia is a very poor example. From my understanding people with this condition are never satisfied with their weight or body image and/or consuming sufficient food, so the least worst option is often forced treatment. In contrast, many trans people are more content when allowed to live life as the gender they consider themselves to be. I am aware that those at the opposite extreme to yourself have also done harm by foisting trans-identity onto (typically young) people who have other neurological conditions such as autism. So what I'm suggesting is we need to acknowledge our ignorance, accept that nature is more complex than any of our models can hope to capture and do what is best for the unique person that needs help. I.e., our models are guides, not hard and fast rules to be applied at all times to all people.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sure sure, and if hens believe that it's obvious that chickens and foxes should be separated for the safety of hens... then those hens should try to address why foxes are so dangerous instead of creating a safe coop for the chickens to live in.

Seriously though, have you not been paying attention?
Females have been trying to address male violence for eons. We've petitioned to have laws made against rape and sexual assault, against sexual harassment, and to make sure that marital rape is recognized as rape. So far, it hasn't resulted in males managing to abandon or overcome their tendencies in any culture.

Why do you (a male) think that females should be forbidden from having safe areas free from male risks while we continue to fight for a behavioral and judicial adjustment?

ETA: And furthermore, why do you think that males who have transgender identities should be granted safe spaces from males?

Interesting that you only mention laws that prohibit the behaviours you want to reduce as ways to alter behaviour. Do you generally believe ever bigger sticks are solutions to problems?

I would suggest reducing childhood poverty, addressing inequality, education and early intervention may be better and more productive strategies for tackling male violence. Unfortunately people like @theprestige and @Ziggurat and possibly yourself will object to their tax dollars being spent on such things.

ETA: And before anyone goes gotcha!: tax dollars wouldn't pay for them.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No - broadly speaking, TWs/TIMs are never going to be accepted in the way they want to be accepted. Activists have made it clear that "Trans women are women" (corollary = that "trans" is an adjective modifying woman - similar to "tall" or "white") and that they should be considered as such in all circumstances. However, in long term intimate relationships, they will never be thought of as women by lesbians or (more importantly) by heterosexual males. Similarly transmen will never be thought of as men by gay men or straight women. This is the contradiction at the core of the movement (i.e. that they want to be treated as the other sex, but cannot change sex).

Yes, human behavior is complex (as is behavior of other mammals), but a brain in a male body is by definition a male brain. Activists have (incoherently) challenged the definition of the sexes, but are left with the untenable positions of suggesting they evolved independently in humans or creationism.

Empathy for these folks can ultimately only be getting them to accept their sex. The movement as it stands now is doomed - it's just a matter of how much damage it does before it dies (to girls and women, kids who believe transitioning is the answer to their mental health issues, the Democratic party in the US, public faith in science).

You've just come out with a (useless) tautology. I.e. a male brain is a brain in a male body.

It seems some people just can't get past the idea that gender does not have to correspond to biological sex, just that it usually does in the vast majority of cases. For you there is are vertical lines at either end of the distribution curve; you can't deny the existence of very butch lesbians and effeminate gay men, but past those points no human is allowed to exist because doing so would conflict with your model of the universe. I suggest that nature doesn't give a ◊◊◊◊ about our models and will just do whatever it does.