Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[theprestige]

That depends on whether we believe it's an inborn trait like sexual orientation or (somewhat less controversially) asparagus anosmia.

Por que no los dos? Gender dysphoria might well have a direct or indirect genetic component. But we also have very good evidence that transgender identity, especially in children, can be brought about by social contagion. So when a trans privilege activist coincidentally has 100% 67% trans prepubescent offspring, suspicion is the appropriate response.

ETA: Thanks for the correction, @Ziggurat

 

[Ziggurat]

So when a trans privilege activist coincidentally has 100% trans prepubescent offspring,

I think it's 67% (2 out of 3), not 100%. Still, quite the coincidence.

suspicion is the appropriate response.

Absolutely.

 

[Rolfe]

One wonders what they think the point of a women's institute even is.

They said. They absolutely, wholeheartedly and truly believe that transwomen are women.

One wonders how they have managed to figure out whom to exclude from the organisation.

 

[d4m10n]

It's your internal sense of self, in terms of being a man or woman.

I'm skeptical about whether "internal sense" is really coherent here. Humans literally do have several internal senses, e.g. bladder and bowel urgency, internal temperature, proprioception, gravitational (or accelerational) detection, but we don't have internal senses about our psychological states and desires so much as we have conscious access to them to a greater or lesser degree. I don't have an "internal sense" that I'd be happier if I lost fat and gained muscle, but I do know it to be true from personal experience. I don't have any sense as to whether I'd be happier as a female or not, having never tried it, nor do I aspire to become more female.

Honestly I think this entire conversation would be less confusing if we chose to talk in terms of things which we know to exist—such as desires and aspirations—rather than making metaphysically dubious claims about somehow sensing the gendered nature of one's innermost being.

 

[theprestige]

They said. They absolutely, wholeheartedly and truly believe that transwomen are women.

This is a pet peeve of mine, about the trans privilege movement. Transwomen don't have women's issues. They have transwomen's issues, which are a totally different thing. Any organization formed to help women is constitutionally unqualified to help transwomen.

One wonders how they have managed to figure out whom to exclude from the organisation.

Indeed.

 

[d4m10n]

Gender dysphoria might well have a direct or indirect genetic component

Or epigenetic or otherwise prenatal, to be sure. Presumably evolution came up at least a few neurological adaptations in order to make the brain more receptive to having a sexed body, and presumably that process can go awry just as any other process of sexual differentiation does on occasion.

 

[Thermal]

I'm skeptical about whether "internal sense" is really coherent here.

I get what you're saying, but I can visualize this pretty easily. I don't feel particularly like I am a male. Yet the stuff I do and wear and act like is +/-consistent with how other males present and act. If I were to look down and see different plumbing, I think that internal sense would become crystal clear. It's only subtle and elusive if everything jibes.

 

[Thermal]

If that definition sufficed for social interaction, there'd be no call for preferred pronouns. An internal sense can't suffice for social interaction, because nobody else can perceive your internal senses. In order to interact with others in society, you need to account for how they perceive you. Traditionally, this was done by making a noticeable effort to "pass" as the opposite gender. But this was back when gender was synonymous with sex, and society's gendered expectations about dress and behavior were much more rigid and well-defined.

In modern times, it's done by aping traditional gendered dress, and by outright demanding (announcing preferred pronouns, etc.) that people behave as though they perceive you as the opposite sex.

All of which is effectively meaningless anyway, since in modern times there is no overt nor expected difference in the way we interact socially with each gender. We still treat the sexes differently in some cases, but gender decoupled from sex is functionally meaningless for social interaction. For example, people don't flirt based on the other person's internal sense of gender. They do it based on their own perception of the other's biological sex.

A much more realistic definition, which does not rely on invisible internal senses, and which is decidedly un-slippery, and which has practical applications beyond social interaction, is "adult human female". The only slipperiness to it, which baffles alien space robots but is immediately accessible to beings that communicate via natural languages, is that in some contexts the definition encompasses all human females, not just the adults (e.g., women's restrooms).


Nothing capricious about it. Gender and sex have always been interlinked concepts in our society. Gender decoupled from sex has no practical applications. Your actual complaint, based on your recent arguments is that we're not capricious enough in decoupling gender from sex (e.g., again, women's restrooms; the sex-based definition, applied consistently, handles this case just fine, but you want to capriciously be inconsistent in this one case).


We already have a hard line distinction: Adult human female. According to this definition, it doesn't matter what you think of yourself as in the showers, but it does matter that you're showering in the sex-segregated facility appropriate to your sex.

As for policy: We already have very clear policy that you cannot treat someone differently in housing, employment, etc. because of their outward gender presentation.

And note that this definition does not assail the dignity of trans-identified people. It makes no reference to, nor cares one whit about, allegations of mental illness or perversion. This entire discussion can be had - has been had, several times - dispassionately, respecting all internal senses and outward presentations, honoring the entire spectrum of human expression.

Tl; dr: "if you demand that woman = bio female, we're all good and do things my sides way".

Yes, you've restated your side's extreme pretty eloquently. Not sure that advances anything productively.

 

[Ziggurat]

Tl; dr: "if you demand that woman = bio female, we're all good and do things my sides way".

Again, this is an ironic position to be taking when you're so insistent that gender must be binary.

Yes, you've restated your side's extreme pretty eloquently. Not sure that advances anything productively.

If productive advancement is your metric, then your own posts here have been a complete failure.

 

[d4m10n]

If I were to look down and see different plumbing, I think that internal sense would become crystal clear.

My intuitions on this particular hypothetical run 180° to your own. If I were to wake up body-swapped with my wife, I'd feel compelled to act the part in social situations (restrooms, etc.) rather than relying on my "internal sense of self" to override everyone else's gendered expectations.

 

[theprestige]

Tl; dr: "if you demand that woman = bio female, we're all good and do things my sides way".

Yes, you've restated your side's extreme pretty eloquently. Not sure that advances anything productively.

My bad. I forgot that you had already defined my arguments as soy, and your arguments as chad.

ETA: More seriously...

If we define woman = bio female, it resolves a lot of dilemmas in social interaction and public policy, and avoids a lot of problems that arise from defining woman as "inner feels of womanhood". I don't see why you wouldn't like this definition, or see it as a "demand" rather than as a definition.

And I don't see what's so "extreme" about my position. The biological stuff is pretty basic conformance to reality. The "gender is functionally meaningless decoupled from sex" stuff is pretty basic social observation. What's extreme about the position I've expressed?

Also, while I appreciate the complement, eloquence isn't really necessary. It's more just being able to articulate a position at all. Which is something trans privilege activists really struggle with. Asking them to step down from the extremes of "kill all terfs" an "protect the dolls", and we tend to get nothing coherent at all.

Finally, we have already seen productive advances, wherever "my side's" definition of woman has been put into policy. (And we have already seen plenty of evidence that the trans privilege definitions - such as they are - tend to be counter-productive, when not being actually anti-social in their outcomes when applied.)

 

[Thermal]

My intuitions on this particular hypothetical run 180° to your own. If I were to wake up body-swapped with my wife, I'd feel compelled to act the part in social situations (restrooms, etc.) rather than relying on my "internal sense of self" to override everyone else's gendered expectations.

Not suddenly body swapped. That's a whole different enchilada. And I also doubt you would be so Vulcan cool about it. I think you would freak the ◊◊◊◊ out, and remain so for a long time.

 

[Thermal]

Again, this is an ironic position to be taking when you're so insistent that gender must be binary.

I think it definitionally is. Like theprestige says, gender decoupled from sex is meaningless. Where I differ with him is that related ideas are still linked, but not synonymous.

If productive advancement is your metric, then your own posts here have been a complete failure.

Back atcha brah.

 

[Thermal]

My bad. I forgot that you had already defined my arguments as soy, and your arguments as chad.

ETA: More seriously...

If we define woman = bio female, it resolves a lot of dilemmas in social interaction and public policy, and avoids a lot of problems that arise from defining woman as "inner feels of womanhood". I don't see why you wouldn't like this definition, or see it as a "demand" rather than as a definition.

Because it is prohibitively restrictive against transwomen, which as a relatively nice and accepting guy, I am viscerally resistant towards.

Finally, I made a good-faith effort to lay out my position clearly and in detail.

You did, and I don’t even wholly disagree. What it leads to makes me push back. I mean, I want to be cool with everybody, not marginalize a very small group.

Why the tl;dr? Did you find nothing to disagree with in it?

It's more that I had to tear down a freaking flawless custom built-in set of cabinetry I made because the World's Most Indecisive Customer made another change and I'm running way behind schedule.

You guys are delivering posts that require real consideration (@Ziggurat, too) but they turn off my electricity if I don't dig holes and fill them back in for this knucklehead.

 

[d4m10n]

Not suddenly body swapped.

You can surely see my confusion here, since you wrote "If I [male] were to look down and see different plumbing [female]" and that implies some sort of body swap.

I also doubt you would be so Vulcan cool about it.

That's sort of orthogonal to the main question about how to behave in sexed social situations. I believe we should behave so as to avoid alarming other people rather than so as to affirm our own internal sense of self. Spock actually has a saying about this.

 

[Thermal]

You can surely see my confusion here, since you wrote "If I [male] were to look down and see different plumbing [female]" and that implies some sort of body swap.

The Swap indicates you had one body, then abruptly and magically had another, with you knowing the whole time that you were in some kind of bizarre charade. I find that world's away from what I've heard and read about the trans experience, that it was lifelong and only slowly put together.

That's sort of orthogonal to the main question about how to behave in sexed social situations. I believe we should behave so as to avoid alarming other people rather than so as to affirm our own internal sense of self. Spock actually has a saying about this.

I think so too, and I also think it's a two way street. Each gives a little to make it comfortable for the other, within reason. The TRAs want full concession, and the Bashers want none. So here we are.

Eta: "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" works well sometimes, not so much in others. We ain't killing you to harvest your healthy body parts for others there, Maccivelli.

 

[d4m10n]

The TRAs want full concession, and the Bashers want none.

What the TQ+ activists and the gendercrits have in common is the desire to win utterly and from the top-down (e.g. via Supreme Court rulings) rather than giving individuals and businesses the liberty to allow each side to give a little to make it comfortable for the other.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not suddenly body swapped. That's a whole different enchilada. And I also doubt you would be so Vulcan cool about it. I think you would freak the ◊◊◊◊ out, and remain so for a long time.

It doesn't matter. There's no point in debating these hypotheticals. Instead, why don't you address real people? There are people who say that they are nonbinary or gender fluid. You say that's not possible. But you have provided no reason to reach this conclusion. On what basis do you conclude that they are all either wrong or lying?

 

[Ziggurat]

I think it definitionally is. Like theprestige says, gender decoupled from sex is meaningless. Where I differ with him is that related ideas are still linked, but not synonymous.

If your gender doesn't have to match your sex, then why does gender have to be binary? You say that definitionally it is, but you haven't actually explained why. Unless you're just declaring that it can only be binary as an axiom rather than as a conclusion, but that's just declaring yourself right by fiat, something you just accused theprestige of doing. That would be hypocritical of you. Furthermore, since the TRA's don't accept such a definition, you declaring that no one can be nonbinary does no more than me saying that transwomen are men. And as you have said, that's unproductive.

 

[Thermal]

It doesn't matter. There's no point in debating these hypotheticals.

Of course there is, especially when we are referring to our own outlooks.

Instead, why don't you address real people?

I have. I am acquainted with a couple. I find them to be playing around, like 2 spirits and Ocelotkins. I've read accounts of others, who equally come across as playing the special snowflake game.

There are people who say that they are nonbinary or gender fluid. You say that's not possible. But you have provided no reason to reach this conclusion.

I have.

On what basis do you conclude that they are all either wrong or lying?

The basis I've said. Sex is binary, and gender is coupled to (but not synonymous with) sex. There aren't additional options.