Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

First, you say that like these are different phenomena, but they're intimately related.

Politicians from one political party giving that party's supporters what they say they want is not remotely the same as capitulating to special interest and/or lobbying groups. Even if the groups managed to persuade those voters to put pressure on those politicians, that's just ordinary democracy in action, not ideological capture of the legislature by the groups.

These opinions came down to voters from the top, they didn't come up to the legislature because of any true grass roots movement.

Assertion noted.

Second, the survey question was, "Would you support or oppose allowing public schools to accommodate students' requests to go by pronouns that match their gender identity rather than their sex assigned at birth?" Note that this DOES NOT address hiding anything from parents.

As I said, it was the closest survey question I could find on the specific issue of social transition in schools—which you made assertions about without providing any public polling to back them up. Respondents to that survey could assume that parents would be informed or they could assume that parents would not be informed, the question doesn't really say one way or another.

Third, if you want some more clear polling, well, the males in female sports issue has some of that...

Excellent, thanks. California Democrats appear to be evenly split on that issue, given the usual margins for error.

 

[d4m10n]

It's wild to me that at this point in the conversation, damion still tries to play the "maybe trans privilege extremism is what the majority of voters want" card.

I've no idea why you would consider that wild, I'm literally just looking at what voters said they wanted in order to figure out why California went so overboard on this stuff. My working hypothesis is that highly educated voters in expensive coastal cities are immersed in a subculture which takes most of the major claims of transgender ideology to be both true and righteous.

 

[Thermal]

Ever since it became possible to choose, most women have chosen to wear trousers most of the time. But I think you're right; most men with gender dysphoria do seem to choose to wear dresses or skirts. Why is that, do you suppose? Why do they make the opposite choice to the one most actual women make?

Beats me. I'm not trans. Overcompensating for being closeted for a long time? I dunno.

My wife frequently wears skirts to work, and always a dress for anything remotely more formal. Some women I know where skirts almost exclusively. The last trans post I saw on Reddit had a young transwoman wearing yoga pants and a sweatshirt.

 

[d4m10n]

And why only concern about 'males' in women's sports?

And why the scare quotes around males?

 

[theprestige]

And why the scare quotes around males?

Because he's confused, like he says.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've no idea why you would consider that wild, I'm literally just looking at what voters said they wanted in order to figure out why California went so overboard on this stuff. My working hypothesis is that highly educated voters in expensive coastal cities are immersed in a subculture which takes most of the major claims of transgender ideology to be both true and righteous.

Sounds like a pretty good description of ideological capture.

 

[smartcooky]

And why only concern about 'males' in women's sports?

Because they're the only biological sex that doesn't belong there. What else need be of concern... Chimpazees? Aliens from Sigma Draconis? Superheroes from the Marvel Universe?

 

[Ziggurat]

Because they're the only biological sex that doesn't belong there. What else need be of concern... Chimpazees? Aliens from Sigma Draconis? Superheroes from the Marvel Universe?

No, he's asking why no one is concerned about female athletes competing in the male category.

The answer to that question should be self evident.

 

[smartcooky]

No, he's asking why no one is concerned about female athletes competing in the male category.

The answer to that question should be self evident.

Yeah! There are orders of magnitude more transgender identified males demanding to compete in women's sports than there are transgender identified females demanding to compete in men's sports.... I can't possibly imagine why that might be

 

[Thermal]

You are responding to which stereotype their presentation matches. So you are absolutely basing this on a stereotype.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. A stereotype is defined as "fixed, oversimplified, and often biased belief or image about a group of people, attributing certain characteristics (personality, appearance, abilities) to all members, regardless of individual differences, acting as mental shortcuts but often being inaccurate and leading to prejudice". You, certainly, react to that. I, and (f I may be so bold as to suggest) others do not.

And the fact that you're doing it on the basis of a presentation which very well may NOT match their self conception (for example, plenty of effeminate gay men consider themselves to be men, not women) indicates to me that you are not in fact basing your treatment on gender as you have defined it.

Again, that gots nothing to do with anything. Any man can represent himself on the spectrum of masculinity to femininity, while still being a man. There is no spectrum of male to female; it's binary, with the couple biological screw ups in between. I've said this repeatedly.

{eta: and my definition, which you are trying mightily to peanut-butter-sandwich out of existence, has been repeatedly said to be a provisional understanding, because a hard line definition changes the game for both sides. I might have mentioned that a few times}

Well, no. Again, I think gender dysphoria is quite real.

We are not talking about dysphorics.

When they dress up to look like women, that's pretending, yes. Because, get this, they aren't women.

They are dressing to look like themselves. See the stereotype definition above to understand your mistake.

That is literally not my argument. The definition of a leprechaun is something other than a human, so naturally people pretending to be leprechauns aren't leprechauns.

Cheap cop out.

The definition of a transwoman isn't a woman with a penis, that is something that doesn't exist, but there are males who want to be thought of as women, and they're quite real.

There it is again- 'who want to be thought of" instead of "believe they are". You keep begging the question of insincerity.

They often aren't being themselves. When you put a wig on, that's not being yourself. When you have plastic surgery to make it look like you have breasts, that's not being yourself. They aren't being who they are, they're pretending to be who they want to be. Cisgender people do that too, BTW, and I'm not even saying there's anything wrong with that. The entire cosmetics industry is based on that, so there's nothing particularly unique in this regard.

Ok, this is kind of interesting. You think that any attempts at grooming are insincere? If a guy shaves, he is "pretending" to be younger, you say? If he combs his hair, he's a liar, because he is not presenting himself as god intended? Do tell.

◊◊◊◊ yes. Obviously. Not about being women (because they are), but about being prettier and more youthful than they actually are. Is this news to you?

I don't have to pretend to be a man. I am one, whether or not I want to be. But I wouldn't be offended if you were to suggest that when I dress up, I pretend to be handsomer, more successful, more charming than I actually am.

Please tell me all about these restrictions on dress, that make a liar out of anyone who tries to pass themselves off as handsome. Do the pretty people have like a copyright lock on certain forms of attire? How do we determine our sincere representation over an insincere one?

This is my third time asking: if sex is just a proxy for other things we should care about, what are those other things? This is an opportunity for you to be more "productive" in this discussion, to advance beyond mere sex discrimination that you consider a fig leaf. You have failed to even attempt an answer twice already. Will you go for three times? If so, then I cannot help but conclude that you aren't actually interested in what you claim to be interested in.

I never said it was a proxy, nor do I particularly think it is (looked at a certain way, you could argue it, but I find it navel gazing- sex is largely not used as a proxy in this discussion, IMO). You pulled that out of your ass, saying "it seems like you are saying" and trying your hand at some bull ◊◊◊◊ Socratic leading. So no, I don't intend to be your dancing ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ monkey.

 

[d4m10n]

Sounds like a pretty good description of ideological capture.

Ideological capture is when an activist group or groups manage to co-opt a pre-existing institution (such as a political party) in order to serve the goals of the activists, presumably at the expense of the pre-existing goals of the original institution.

Damion Reinhardt (@damionreinhardt)

Useful phrase IMO, but not much different than entryism.

substack.com

My hypothesis about highly educated voters immersed in a subculture which takes most of the major claims of transgender ideology to be both true and righteous is just the ordinary process of political parties being responsive to the changing values of their grassroots supporters.

(There is no logical reason why these distinct processes cannot proceed in tandem, though.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull ◊◊◊◊. A stereotype is defined as "fixed, oversimplified, and often biased belief or image about a group of people, attributing certain characteristics (personality, appearance, abilities) to all members, regardless of individual differences, acting as mental shortcuts but often being inaccurate and leading to prejudice". You, certainly, react to that. I, and (f I may be so bold as to suggest) others do not.

Of course you react to that. You just got done TELLING me that you react to that.

Again, that gots nothing to do with anything. Any man can represent himself on the spectrum of masculinity to femininity, while still being a man.

I agree. So why, then, are you treating men as if they are women because they are feminine?

There is no spectrum of male to female; it's binary, with the couple biological screw ups in between. I've said this repeatedly.

{eta: and my definition, which you are trying mightily to peanut-butter-sandwich out of existence, has been repeatedly said to be a provisional understanding, because a hard line definition changes the game for both sides. I might have mentioned that a few times}

That's a cop-out. And it's another example of the incoherence of your position. You have also said repeatedly that one of the problems with this debate is the lack of proper definitions. But here you are, essentially refusing to provide a proper definition.

We are not talking about dysphorics.

Why not?

Seriously, if someone is trans but not dysphoric, why do they deserve any accommodations?

They are dressing to look like themselves. See the stereotype definition above to understand your mistake.

People don't have plastic surgery to look like themselves. They have plastic surgery to look different from themselves.

Cheap cop out.

Bwahahahahaha!

That's hilarious, coming from you. Whenever you're actually challenged, cheap cop outs are the only thing you can offer in response.

There it is again- 'who want to be thought of" instead of "are". You keep begging the question of insincerity.

I'm sure their desires are sincere. You are the one calling that insincere, not me.

Ok, this is kind of interesting. You think that any attempts at grooming are insincere?

No, I don't consider it insincere. I consider it aspirational. You're the one passing moral judgment on that, not me. And the issue isn't really about how or why people choose to represent themselves the way that they do. The real issue here is how the rest of us are expected to respond. I don't mind a woman putting on makeup to look younger. I don't mind a man dying his grey hairs to look younger. I don't mind a man putting on a dress to look like a woman. But in none of these cases am I actually obliged to pretend that their aspirations create reality.

I never said it was a proxy

No, I suppose you didn't. But that was the only logical meaning of your argument comparing sex discrimination to age discrimination. I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that your argument even had any logic to it, and for that I apologize.

 

[Ziggurat]

Ideological capture is when an activist group or groups manage to co-opt a pre-existing institution (such as a political party) in order to serve the goals of the activists, presumably at the expense of the pre-existing goals of the original institution.

Damion Reinhardt (@damionreinhardt)

Useful phrase IMO, but not much different than entryism.

substack.com

My hypothesis about highly educated voters immersed in a subculture which takes most of the major claims of transgender ideology to be both true and righteous is just the ordinary process of political parties being responsive to the changing values of their grassroots supporters.

(There is no logical reason why these distinct processes cannot proceed in tandem, though.)

These processes are not running in tandem, they are the same. You haven't described something different, you've described the same thing using different words. How did the trans lobby ideologically capture the Democrats? By getting the subculture of highly educated leftists to accept the claims of transgender ideology. But you're wrong about it being changing values of grassroots supporters. These highly educated leftists are not grass roots supporters. They're the party elite. This is a top-down phenomenon, NOT a bottom-up one. And their interests run counter to the more traditional blue collar support base that the Democrats used to be driven by.

 

[d4m10n]

How did the trans lobby ideologically capture the Democrats? By getting the subculture of highly educated leftists to accept the claims of transgender ideology.

Agreed so far.

These highly educated leftists are not grass roots supporters.

They are literally the voting bloc most likely to support the Democratic Party.

They're the party elite.

The party elite is almost entirely composed of people with college or post-graduate degrees who are well-resourced, but the party elite are a tiny fraction of the overall universe of voters with college or post-graduate degrees who are well-resourced.

This is a top-down phenomenon, NOT a bottom-up one.

This is just a bare assertion with no supporting evidence.

And their interests run counter to the more traditional blue collar support base that the Democrats used to be driven by.

We agree on this part, but it's important to note the inversion of support (based on SES) which has taken place since the Obama era.

See the second graph posted here for a good visualization of that inversion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1981476369990062169

Given that inversion, it shouldn't be at all surprising that the Democratic Party is much more responsive than they used to be to the values of highly educated, highly resourced voters living in expensive urban zip codes.

 

[Thermal]

Of course you react to that. You just got done TELLING me that you react to that.

I did not. You interpreted things through your inexplicable 1940s filter.

I agree. So why, then, are you treating men as if they are women because they are feminine?

Because it's what I react to, believing that it makes the person more comfortable interacting with me. Thus far, it has served me well. YMMV.

{eta: and I said 'more like' I treat women, not as if they were women}

That's a cop-out. And it's another example of the incoherence of your position. You have also said repeatedly that one of the problems with this debate is the lack of proper definitions. But here you are, essentially refusing to provide a proper definition.

Yes grasshopper, that's the problem. WE need to AGREE on a definition. Do you understand that I am not the authority on that point? I ain't playing your asinine Humpty Dumpty game. The working definition I 'provided' is loose, and qualified as such. It makes no sense to have a discussion with everyone using their personal definitions, which are at odds with each other.

Why not?

Seriously, if someone is trans but not dysphoric, why do they deserve any accommodations?

Do you recall that we have done this, and recently?

People don't have plastic surgery to look like themselves. They have plastic surgery to look different from themselves.

Did I say plastic surgery, or did I say dress? I'll wait while you try to remember. And you are willfully ducking the point.

Bwahahahahaha!

That's hilarious, coming from you. Whenever you're actually challenged, cheap cop outs are the only thing you can offer in response.

And Ziggurat saddles up his Tu Quoque horse yet again. Man, you guys would be laughed off the forum if you tried this ◊◊◊◊ anywhere else but your little echo chamber.

I'm sure their desires are sincere. You are the one calling that insincere, not me.

No, I don't consider it insincere. I consider it aspirational. You're the one passing moral judgment on that, not me. And the issue isn't really about how or why people choose to represent themselves the way that they do. The real issue here is how the rest of us are expected to respond. I don't mind a woman putting on makeup to look younger. I don't mind a man dying his grey hairs to look younger. I don't mind a man putting on a dress to look like a woman. But in none of these cases am I actually obliged to pretend that their aspirations create reality.

You're changing the subject. Did you not understand the question?

{eta: you keep saying 'look like a woman' instead of looking like themselves. Are there uncrossable attire lines in your 1940s worldview? Can one of those uppity females not dare to wear jeans and a t-shirt? Cuz for a lot of us, there is no real 'dress like a woman' standard that prevents it. I recall thet your side put up a huge argument a while back that 'dress like a woman' doesn't even mean anything, as dress runs the spectrum. I guess that's been abandonded now for the hard line 'women wear this, men wear that' bull ◊◊◊◊? Moving backwards}

No, I suppose you didn't. But that was the only logical meaning of your argument comparing sex discrimination to age discrimination. I suppose I shouldn't have assumed that your argument even had any logic to it, and for that I apologize.

It's funny- when I saw you setting up your cheap Socratic lead, I knew you would end exactly here, but I thought you would specifically use the words 'I overestimated you'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because it's what I react to, believing that it makes the person more comfortable interacting with me. Thus far, it has served me well. YMMV.

Oh, I don't question that it works for you. Stereotyping often does, because that's what we call pattern recognition applied to human behavior.

But it's not gender, not as you defined it. Not even close. And it has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with sex segregation.

Yes grasshopper, that's the problem. WE need to AGREE on a definition.

So provide one that we can examine. The one you offered so far has failed, because it's not even the one you want to use.

Did I say plastic surgery, or did I say dress?

*I* said plastic surgery, and you want to ignore that this is what I said.

 

[Thermal]

Oh, I don't question that it works for you. Stereotyping often does, because that's what we call pattern recognition applied to human behavior.

But it's not gender, not as you defined it. Not even close. And it has ◊◊◊◊ all to do with sex segregation.

Still not stereotyping, and peanut butter sandwiches still exist.

So provide one that we can examine. The one you offered so far has failed, because it's not even the one you want to use.

You don't want to use a definition to engage productively. You want a peanut butter sandwich.

*I* said plastic surgery, and you want to ignore that this is what I said.

Yes you did. You went out to an extreme instead of dealing with what we were talking about.

Addressing your change of subject squarely: sometimes. Cosmetic surgery can be to fit an idealized self-image, or be aspirational, sure. It can also be used to get your body jibing with how you see yourself- not a larger cup size or whatever, just making the reflection in the mirror not look like a stranger.

And I know, you don't accept this. Men can't dress their best, or they are putting on an act, which is pretending to be something they are not, by any interpretation. There is only one true Real Self and all else is folly. A reading from the Book of Ziggurat.

 

[d4m10n]

It makes no sense to have a discussion with everyone using their personal definitions, which are at odds with each other.

Normally I would agree with this but for terms like gender we've got at least four or five variant meanings floating around.

• Gender1: A polite alternative word for biological sex (e.g., on government forms).
• Gender2: Social stereotypes and roles associated with sex (e.g., masculinity/femininity).
• Gender3: A social role projected onto individuals based on sex.
• Gender4: A private, internal, psychological experience or "gender identity" (the sense of feeling like a man, woman, or non-binary person).

Those are lightly paraphrased from Kathleen Stock in Material Girls by Google AI.

 

[Thermal]

Normally I would agree with this but for terms like gender we've got at least four or five variant meanings floating around.

• Gender1: A polite alternative word for biological sex (e.g., on government forms).
• Gender2: Social stereotypes and roles associated with sex (e.g., masculinity/femininity).
• Gender3: A social role projected onto individuals based on sex.
• Gender4: A private, internal, psychological experience or "gender identity" (the sense of feeling like a man, woman, or non-binary person).

Those are lightly paraphrased from Kathleen Stock in Material Girls by Google AI.

Right, and the usage will slip and change in the same sentence, often without the user realizing it.

Loose criticisms: #1 is functionally useless, #2 is just bad, #3 can be useful in limited contexts, and #4 is the one that is relevant for discussion here.

 

[d4m10n]

#4 is the one that is relevant for discussion here.

Do you think that one is coherently and non-recursively defined?

I've no idea what it means to feel like a man in the absence of either social expectations of masculinity, unless we're just talking about erotic feeling mediated through sexed bodies.