Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

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

Nah. But it's close to being useful.

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.

You ever wake up one morning and said 'I feel like rocking a lace thong under my miniskirt today? Ya, me neither.

I think it's so central and core to a sense of self that you don'r notice it unless it is radically out of whack with the plumbing inspection.

eta: if we were in feudal Japan, where a manly man wore garments we would consider girly today, I think I would wear them anyway, just because the other manly men were doing it, and I guess my barometer is tuned in to the societal convention more than I thought.

But is the sense of manliness a constant, and you adapt to the local custom, or is it all the local custom, including the sense of manliness itself?

 

[Ziggurat]

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

No, I absolutely want a definition to engage with. I have tried to engage with the definition you provided, and you refuse to do so. You are lying about your intentions. You consistently argue in bad faith.

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.

These are not different things. These are the same thing.

And I know, you don't accept this.

What exactly do you mean, "accept this"? How am I not accepting this? Did I ever say that I objected to this? No, I did not.

Men can't dress their best, or they are putting on an act

There's nothing wrong with putting on an act. I never said there was. In fact, I specifically mentioned that *I* do this in order to convey to you that I am *not* making a moral judgment against it. And you couldn't clue into that fact, because you're bad at communication and can't understand what people are saying to you if it doesn't fit your preconceived expectations.

 

[Thermal]

No, I absolutely want a definition to engage with. I have tried to engage with the definition you provided, and you refuse to do so. You are lying about your intentions. You consistently argue in bad faith.

I have said...repeatedly... using small words... that the definition is inadequate. It loosely represents my understanding enough for discussion.

That you want to peanut butter sandwich it is profoundly uninteresting. I can do that too. Anyone can. It's boring.

These are not different things. These are the same thing.

What exactly do you mean, "accept this"? How am I not accepting this? Did I ever say that I objected to this? No, I did not.

This is why I love you, man. You deny it, then immediately say you don't. It's just performance art.

There's nothing wrong with putting on an act. I never said there was. In fact, I specifically mentioned that *I* do this in order to convey to you that I am *not* making a moral judgment against it. And you couldn't clue into that fact, because you're bad at communication and can't understand what people are saying to you if it doesn't fit your preconceived expectations.

Ya your subtext is just masterful.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have said...repeatedly... using small words... that the definition is inadequate. It loosely represents my understanding enough for discussion.

Except it doesn't, because you don't actually even use it. You use some other definition.

Ya your subtext is just masterful.

Translation: you want to hold me accountable for things I never said, because you can't adequately criticize what I DID say.

 

[Tomboy]

You ever wake up one morning and said 'I feel like rocking a lace thong under my miniskirt today? Ya, me neither.

I think it's so central and core to a sense of self that you don'r notice it unless it is radically out of whack with the plumbing inspection.

I'm probably missing something blatantly obvious, but why is one's choice of clothes so central to one's core sense of self that it automatically determines that person's gender? I ask as a person who is biologically female but who has worn men's underwear since I was old enough to buy my own underwear, and I used to wear it under men's pants back when I was less curvy and could fit into men's pants. I have never desired to wear a lacy thong or mini skirt. I have also never wanted to be male, though, nor wanted to be treated as a man (except in the practical sense of wanting things like equal respect and pay and privilege, etc.).

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.

Like d4m10n said, I don't know what it means to feel like a woman per any internal sense of self; I only know what it means to feel like myself. I know what it feels like to be biologically female. I know that I don't appreciate a lot of the culturally appropriate things that many other women seem to enjoy; things like lacy thongs and mini skirts, I suppose. Or dresses and makeup. Or <insert other culturally appropriate womanly stereotype here>. In fact, I can safely say that when it comes to the confines of social expectations of femininity, I very much do not feel like a woman. I do very much consider myself one nonetheless.

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).

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.

Why is #1 functionally useless for this discussion?

Aren't #2 and #3 what you're doing when you decide to treat butch women like one of the guys and feminine men like women? Or when you determine what someone's internal sense of self must be based on how they dress? In what contexts would #3 be useful? Please note that I'm not attempting any sort of gotcha. I'm genuinely confused and curious and trying to understand your perspective, but it's so drastically different from mine that I'm struggling.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

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}

We are not talking about dysphorics.

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

Cheap cop out.

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

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.

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?

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.

 

[theprestige]

Nah. But it's close to being useful.

Useful in what way? How close?

 

[theprestige]

That's actually one point that I have changed my mind about, though. I don't react to sex so much as gender in my treatment of others. A butch gal is very much treated as 'one of the guys', and a girly guy treated almost indistinguishably from how I treat a woman. So thanks for that.

All of the workplace tolerance and inclusivity training I've received over the years has been pretty clear that having one approach for "the guys" and another from the women is a microaggression that privileges some co-workers while ostracizing others.

A major theme in the training is that "the guys" often inadvertently create a male-centric clique that blocks women from career opportunities, recognition, etc... unless they make an effort to downplay their femininity and fit in with "the guys". In this context, your idea of "treating women like women" comes across as doing your part to sustain the pay gap. This is probably not what most transwomen have in mind, when they say they want to be treated as women.*

It also comes across as homophobia, since you're also denying effeminate men access to "the guys" clique.

You should seriously consider treating all genders the same, across the entire spectrum. Treat them all as one of the guys**.

---

*Who are we kidding? We both know what transwomen mean when they say they want to be treated as women. They don't mean they want to be discriminated against as if they were women. They mean that they want to be treated as female.

**Really, treat each of them as individual human beings, but you get what I mean.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

THIS!

 

[theprestige]

Loose criticisms: #1 is functionally useless

How do you figure? It's been well demonstrated that gender only has practical applications (i.e., is functionally useful) when it's a proxy for sex.

 

[smartcooky]

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.

Its similar here and in the UK. Labour used to be the party of blue collar support. In the UK, they are now the party of the London Liberal Elites, who look down their noses at the ordinary, working Brit. The BBC is chock full of these types, which why their reporting on transgender issues is so badly skewed to favour the TRA side, while the views of gender crits such as JKR and Helen Joyce are pilloried if they are even mentioned at all. Here its the Auckland Liberal Latte Sippers who don't give a fat rat's arse about blue collar workers.

 

[Thermal]

I'm probably missing something blatantly obvious, but why is one's choice of clothes so central to one's core sense of self that it automatically determines that person's gender?

Not determines, I don't think. More like strongly indicative.

I ask as a person who is biologically female but who has worn men's underwear since I was old enough to buy my own underwear, and I used to wear it under men's pants back when I was less curvy and could fit into men's pants. I have never desired to wear a lacy thong or mini skirt. I have also never wanted to be male, though, nor wanted to be treated as a man (except in the practical sense of wanting things like equal respect and pay and privilege, etc.).

Imma run with your screen name as a tip.

I really don't think clothes make the wo/man. Like we've all noted, jeans and a t-shirt and hoodie are pretty unisex out here.

Like d4m10n said, I don't know what it means to feel like a woman per any internal sense of self; I only know what it means to feel like myself. I know what it feels like to be biologically female. I know that I don't appreciate a lot of the culturally appropriate things that many other women seem to enjoy; things like lacy thongs and mini skirts, I suppose. Or dresses and makeup. Or <insert other culturally appropriate womanly stereotype here>. In fact, I can safely say that when it comes to the confines of social expectations of femininity, I very much do not feel like a woman. I do very much consider myself one nonetheless.

I get that. I'd feel very comfortable saying you are wholly a woman, just not with the same tastes as many others. That happens a lot.

In the context of this discussion though, the opposite angle gets brought up: a guy who *does* have those same tastes as many other women. Maybe he's trans, maybe not. "He's aping! Womanface! Cross dressing perv!" yells the gallery. I don't think so. I think he's just ar another point on the spectrum.

Why is #1 functionally useless for this discussion?

Because it ends it. Governmrmt started this ◊◊◊◊ by equating them, then.making an unclear distinction later (I was asked for my gender in grade school, and told it was more appropriate than asking young children about their sex).

Aren't #2 and #3 what you're doing when you decide to treat butch women like one of the guys and feminine men like women?

Sooooort of. It's not a clear role or stereotype I'm responding to (although I'm sure there's a measure in there), but more the overall vibe. If I was responding to 2&3, a girl in jeans and t-shirt would get the guy treatment.

Or when you determine what someone's internal sense of self must be based on how they dress?

Not 'must'; just a reliable clue.

In what contexts would #3 be useful? Please note that I'm not attempting any sort of gotcha. I'm genuinely confused and curious and trying to understand your perspective, but it's so drastically different from mine that I'm struggling.

Probably my fault. I shoot out responses with less thought than they deserve during the work day when I check my phone for one reason or other. If the above does not clarify, please let me know. I get that you are not setting up a gotcha, appreciated.

 

[smartcooky]

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

Loose criticisms: #1 is functionally useless

Its the only one that doesn't separate gender from sex, so redundant maybe, but useless, I don't think so!

#2 is just bad,

Gender roles are functionally useless now?

#3 can be useful in limited contexts

Agree

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

Telling that you think that... its also the only one that has no basis in reality; its based on pure fantasy.

 

[Thermal]

How do you figure? It's been well demonstrated that gender only has practical applications (i.e., is functionally useful) when it's a proxy for sex.

Then say sex if you mean sex. What's the benefit to using another word that has multiple slippery and ambiguous meanings and caused all this damn ruckus in the first place?

 

[Thermal]

[re#4] Telling that you think that... its also the only one that has no basis in reality; its based on pure fantasy.

This ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ discussion has no meaning if that is not acknowledged.

You don't have to agree with it and all the baggage that comes with it, but to just not acknowledge that it's what Transwomen Are Not Women is all about is pretty pointless.

 

[Thermal]

All of the workplace tolerance and inclusivity training I've received over the years has been pretty clear that having one approach for "the guys" and another from the women is a microaggression that privileges some co-workers while ostracizing others.

A major theme in the training is that "the guys" often inadvertently create a male-centric clique that blocks women from career opportunities, recognition, etc... unless they make an effort to downplay their femininity and fit in with "the guys". In this context, your idea of "treating women like women" comes across as doing your part to sustain the pay gap. This is probably not what most transwomen have in mind, when they say they want to be treated as women.*

It also comes across as homophobia, since you're also denying effeminate men access to "the guys" clique.

You should seriously consider treating all genders the same, across the entire spectrum. Treat them all as one of the guys**.

---

*Who are we kidding? We both know what transwomen mean when they say they want to be treated as women. They don't mean they want to be discriminated against as if they were women. They mean that they want to be treated as female.

**Really, treat each of them as individual human beings, but you get what I mean.

In my circles, the guys are not really calling the shots, so there's not much of a clique to dominate anyone not in it. I'll happily hold the door open for a female engineer I work with, and defer to her opinions and expertise (she's damn good). Same for a couple kitchen and interior designers. I feel.like it's the same when I move in my wife's professional circles.

Re: treating all genders as one of the guys: a dive bar I used to frequent has one of those troughs for men to communally urinate in together. Should I (or do you) whip out the Johnson with little regard for the gender of those around you? No. I extend that defence to other (more subtle) behaviors around women. And no, it's not 'that's different'.

 

[theprestige]

Then say sex if you mean sex. What's the benefit to using another word that has multiple slippery and ambiguous meanings and caused all this damn ruckus in the first place?

In what way is definition 1 not practical?

 

[Thermal]

In what way is definition 1 not practical?

It conflate the meaning with another well-used one, causing needless confusion. Didn't we just go over that?

 

[smartcooky]

It conflate the meaning with another well-used one, causing needless confusion. Didn't we just go over that?

So you think gender should be dropped altogether and sex should be the only term in use? Good luck getting TRAs to go along with that.....

 

[Thermal]

So you think gender should be dropped altogether and sex should be the only term in use? Good luck getting TRAs to go along with that.....

I think the terms should be used appropriately and consistently. My objection to the TRAs is that they shift the meaning around willy-nilly.

Constantly calling a transwoman a he easily moves into harassing territory, more because it is a gendered term (arguably). The girls' shower is not a matter of gender IMO, and sex is the operative term. I think sex discrimination laws should be caveated to exclude areas where nudity would be expected, and formally allow sex segregation to be legally enforced, under penalties falling under the wing of sexual assault. I don't want that Cox dude from Virginia in the changing room with my daughter, no matter what the ◊◊◊◊ he self IDs as.

On this point at least, I would hope, we are all in round agreement.