Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

{Eta: Since our genitalia are not normally interacting, I'm going to guess neither, or at least closer to gender? You'd have to ask them, really.

Why would I ask them about why you choose to treat them the way that you do?

I don't think they'd actually be afraid of me raping them when I'm trying to sell them on a kitchen remodel with their husband and teen/20s sons at the table with us.

I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't answer my question.

I believe the woman might be more sensitive and perceive aggression, and it makes them uncomfortable, without any literal sex reason.

That's stupid. First of, you seem to be conflating the act of sex with the property of sex. These are related, but they aren't the same thing. The property of sex is still relevant even in situations where there are no acts of sex. Female sensitivity to physical aggression (even its potential) is very rooted in the biological difference between the sexes, even independent of the act of sex. For example, if a male wants to forcefully take a female's food, the female will generally be much less able to resist that aggression than another male would, or to resist that aggression if it was coming from another female. So what you're observing is VERY rooted in biological sex, even absent any acts of sex. Moreover, the evolutionary psychological adaptations to the act of sex still operate even when the act of sex isn't in play. They don't just switch off.

It's a social cue, likely going back millions of years

That suggests biology, not gender.

and while it may be rooted in a sex distinction long past, it's just a vibe now, and one I like to defuse.

Sex distinctions are not long past. And it's not just a vibe now.

Also: I recall a male gay couple I did a kitchen for long ago. One was very effeminate, and got the 'closer to woman' treatment. They eventually went with my bid specifically because he said I was easy to talk to. So ya, I'm leaning a bit towards gender.

Have you ever tried being kinder to other males? Because this assumption seems pretty untested.

Sex and gender, as we've discussed repeatedly, are so closely related that they are often interchangable.

The entire argument for trans identity depends upon them NOT being interchangeable.

So I look to how I act around the occasional transwoman I come across (no, I don't run across any Brysons in the wild, but almost exclusively Rep McBrides). I treat them exactly as I do the natal women, who are on that end of the feminine spectrum.

How would you treat a Misty Hill if you ran across him? Would you treat him as a man or a woman?

Both a female electrician and an EMT I know act like one of the guys, and I (almost, if I'm being honest) treat them as such.

But they aren't trans, are they? So whatever this guy/girl gender difference is that you're deciding, it isn't actually the same as the gender which determines trans identity.

Did I nail it with clarity in the above?

Not really.

 

[d4m10n]

What is fashionable to do in that social group wouldn't seem to have much bearing on his usage ITT.

Assuming someone is dedicated to using some other individual's preferred pronouns in person, it would cause undue confusion to switch up just for the sake of some online forum.

 

[d4m10n]

Damion actually came up with an interesting edge case: Trans-identifying men in the US military were required to wear the women's uniform. That's pretty much the only practical application of gender I can think of. And it's pretty artificial. It's also rendered moot, of course, by recent policy changes regarding gender in the military.

I imagine any number of private industries which make use of gendered uniforms (e.g. Delta) have analogous policies.

 

[Thermal]

Assuming someone is dedicated to using some other individual's preferred pronouns in person, it would cause undue confusion to switch up just for the sake of some online forum.

Why? If he considers that person a man, and only uses "she" as a social nicely in that group, why in the world would he, in this forum, get unduly confused?

 

[d4m10n]

As soon as your society moves away from restricting women's participation on account of their sex, this whole notion of meaningful sex roles becomes completely irrelevant.

I still advise my sons to pay on the first date; women seem to want that despite having overtaken men in college degrees.

 

[d4m10n]

...why in the world would he, in this forum, get unduly confused?

Probably "confusion" was not quite what I meant to convey.

My experience is that the odds of slipping up IRL go down if you train yourself to consistently use the same name/pronouns rather than code switching based on social context.

 

[Pixel42]

Another is that women tend to wear more restrictive clothing and rock more time-consumingly applied makeup, hair and jewelry, so I'll do the heavy lifting and make things easier for them when possible.

OK, this is actually quite interesting. Could you indulge me by considering the following questions?

1. I don't wear restrictive clothing, makeup or jewelry. Would you still "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

2. Which, if any, of the following facts about me might affect your answer: I'm 5ft 5"; I'm not well muscled; I'm 72.

3. If I was still 5ft 5", not well muscled, and 72, but was male instead of female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

4. If I was 6ft, well muscled, and 30, but still female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

 

[Thermal]

Why would I ask them about why you choose to treat them the way that you do?

...because you asked me, clearly and specifically, why they would act as they did. You're being intentionally difficult now.

I'm sure that's true, but that doesn't answer my question.

I've answered your question. You just won't hear it because you want a different answer

That's stupid. First of, you seem to be conflating the act of sex with the property of sex. These are related, but they aren't the same thing. The property of sex is still relevant even in situations where there are no acts of sex. Female sensitivity to physical aggression (even its potential) is very rooted in the biological difference between the sexes, even independent of the act of sex. For example, if a male wants to forcefully take a female's food, the female will generally be much less able to resist that aggression than another male would, or to resist that aggression if it was coming from another female. So what you're observing is VERY rooted in biological sex, even absent any acts of sex. Moreover, the evolutionary psychological adaptations to the act of sex still operate even when the act of sex isn't in play. They don't just switch off.

You're trying too hard to steer all interpretations to your foregone conclusion, man.

That suggests biology, not gender.

It may have, and as I just went over, it likely doesn't anymore.

Have you ever tried being kinder to other males?

Yes.

Because this assumption seems pretty untested.

Assumes you, for no reason whatsoever.

The entire argument for trans identity depends upon them NOT being interchangeable.

And, as you may have noticed by now, I do not make that distinction, and don't give a ◊◊◊◊ what the TRA talking points are.

How would you treat a Misty Hill if you ran across him? Would you treat him as a man or a woman?

How the ◊◊◊◊ would I know? Never met them, and know very little based on a couple news blurbs.

But they aren't trans, are they? So whatever this guy/girl gender difference is that you're deciding, it isn't actually the same as the gender which determines trans identity.

There's no credible way that you could be claiming to not understand that the guy's femininity is closely related to what we are talking about here in terms of gender v sex. You're just not getting the answer you want.

Not really.

If you won't accept direct answers, using my behavior with actual transpeople and other gender atypicals , then that's solidly a you thing. Sometimes you have to deal with the answer that doesn't fit your rhetoric.

 

[Thermal]

Probably "confusion" was not quite what I meant to convey.

My experience is that the odds of slipping up IRL go down if you train yourself to consistently use the same name/pronouns rather than code switching based on social context.

Since he's the one talking out both sides of his mouth and not clarifying, maybe we should pose this to him?

 

[Thermal]

OK, this is actually quite interesting. Could you indulge me by considering the following questions?

Absolutely.

1. I don't wear restrictive clothing, makeup or jewelry. Would you still "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

Very likely, yes, but probably not based on the clothing. You have described yourself as a pensioner, and have said that you are advanced in years (meant with the reverence that I have for anyone who has been around the block more than i). I don't know much more about you, so my "heavy lifting" would be offered as I do for anyone, not sex/gender related, because I think of myself as the strongest guy in the room, and the strongest does the work (and yes, I include cleaning up the dishes in that).

2. Which, if any, of the following facts about me might affect your answer: I'm 5ft 5"; I'm not well muscled; I'm 72.

I'm 6', 220, and a generation behind you. Absolutely I would be doing any heavy lifting, down to opening doors.

3. If I was still 5ft 5", not well muscled, and 72, but was male instead of female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

Probably, based more on respect for my elders more than sex/gender (again not meant like an ageist).

{Eta: thinking more about this, I'd probably be more obviously solicitous to you, and more "take a load off buddy, I got this" to a similar male}

4. If I was 6ft, well muscled, and 30, but still female, would you be any less inclined to "do the heavy lifting" for me? Why, or why not?

Yes. I mentioned one of my daughrers earlier, who was on her NCAA crew team. She does the heavy lifting with me when we have to move a couch or something.

If what you are driving at is physical prowess over sex as a determinant, yes, I'm sure there is a measure of that. That's why how I act in strictly social gatherings towards a transwoman is more telling than when the behavioral prompts can be attributed elsewhere.

 

[Rolfe]

From my point of view, it's one of the things that doesn't matter. Let anyone dance whatever "gendered" part they want. No big deal. No hate from me, for that kind of thing.

Damion actually came up with an interesting edge case: Trans-identifying men in the US military were required to wear the women's uniform. That's pretty much the only practical application of gender I can think of. And it's pretty artificial. It's also rendered moot, of course, by recent policy changes regarding gender in the military.

If couples were strictly one male one female there wouldn't be many country dances. Even in a more formal situation, if a male wants to call himself an honorary lady for this purpose, dress accordingly and so on, I doubt you'd get many people complaining.

 

[Thermal]

Whatever



Approximation is not good enough. Approximation won't allow me to be a fighter pilot or an astronaut or a football star or 25 years old again, no matter how much I might wish any of them to be so. Approximation won't allow a transgender identified male to have a period, or give birth to a baby, or breastfeed. A transgender identified male is not, never was, and can never be female - and if they cannot be female, they can never be a woman. That is a fact of science; a fact that trumps all of their feelings, no matter how strong those feelings might be.


Oh, its a gotcha alright - a conclusive one, and you know it. That is why your only refutation is a poor attempt at mockery, backed up by inane comments that amount to no more than a pathetic handwave.

Nope. You're pulling a half-assed Mr Spock routine, insisting that if every detail is not perfectly correlated, there can be no approximation. That's just dumb. Sorry, Charlie.

 

[Pixel42]

If what you are driving at is physical prowess over sex as a determinant, yes, I'm sure there is a measure of that.

Yes, I think you're a decent man who is inclined to be solicitous to people who are smaller/weaker/more vulnerable than you are. Women are almost all in that category.

 

[Pixel42]

If couples were strictly one male one female there wouldn't be many country dances. Even in a more formal situation, if a male wants to call himself an honorary lady for this purpose, dress accordingly and so on, I doubt you'd get many people complaining.

One of the U3A groups I belong to is Scottish Country Dancing, we meet on the first Wednesday of the month. Today there were 11 women and one bloke, which is par for the course. The women pretending to be men wear a blue sash, so we don't get confused.

 

[Ziggurat]

How the ◊◊◊◊ would I know? Never met them, and know very little based on a couple news blurbs.

If you meet him, you won't know him either. Your initial interactions will be based upon his appearance, which you already know.

If you won't accept direct answers

Most of your answers have not been direct.

 

[Thermal]

If you meet him, you won't know him either.

But I would have much more to base interaction on. I assess people for how aggressively they walk, how fast and decisive they are, whether they look me in the eye or avert their eyes, and whether demure or brash among many other criteria.

Your initial interactions will be based upon his appearance, which you already know.

A) No, it is mostly based on behavior, and
B) I might have seen a snapshot or two earlier but didn't make it to my long term memory. Not the foggiest idea what they look like.

Most of your answers have not been direct.

They have been. You want very badly for them to be entirely different, so are getting an input error reading.

 

[Thermal]

Yes, I think you're a decent man who is inclined to be solicitous to people who are smaller/weaker/more vulnerable than you are. Women are almost all in that category.

That is kind of you, but I think there is also a good measure of "you want to be a gentleman? This is how a gentleman behaves" baked into my upbringing.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I would have much more to base interaction on. I assess people for how aggressively they walk, how fast and decisive they are, whether they look me in the eye or avert their eyes, and whether demure or brash among many other criteria.

By those criteria, Hill is a man. Lots of transwomen are.

They have been. You want very badly for them to be entirely different, so are getting an input error reading.

I want them to be coherent. They are not.

 

[theprestige]

That is kind of you, but I think there is also a good measure of "you want to be a gentleman? This is how a gentleman behaves" baked into my upbringing.

Most of what you're talking about seems like vestigial sexism to me.

 

[d4m10n]

Since he's the one talking out both sides of his mouth and not clarifying, maybe we should pose this to him?

Sure, if you want; I'm arguing for the proposition that it's okay to decide which titles or pronouns to use based on your personal relationship to the individual being referenced rather than formulating a general rule which must be inflexibly applied in all like cases.