Well, yes, I consider myself a tomboy, obviously, but that brings me back to how one can't, or shouldn't, assume a person's gender identity by how they present. That seemed to be what you were saying when you said you treat butch women like one of the guys and feminine men as women, and when you responded to D4m10n saying he doesn't know what it feels like to be a man outside of social expectations with not wanting to wear a lace thong and mini skirt as indication of feeling like a man, presumably.
It's a little hard to read your posts, as some sections (like the one above) are invisible.
I don't think clocking gender is 100% reliable by clothing, but it does work remarkably well in the vast majority of interactions. With women, it is tougher, because male dress can and does get adopted more unisexually. My point to d4m10n was that he wouldn't be inclined to wear something in the unambiguous 'female' end of the dress spectrum. A woman freely has the choice to wear something from the male end without a second thought.
A person's internal sense of self is internal, not necessarily external. Not all butch women want to be men. Not all effeminate men want to be women. Moreover, some overtly masculine men do want to be thought of as women, at least some of the time in some contexts for various reasons not all of which, but at least some of which, may be nefarious.
And that brings us (or me) back to how do we, women, biological females who have nothing against transwomen and sympathize with their situation but who wish to use the women's bathroom with as much privacy and as little risk as possible, know which men are harmless transwomen going to the place that validates their internal sense of self, and which are there for nefarious reasons?
Please don't cite lack of evidence that it's a problem like you've done before. I know we're on a skeptic's forum, but we're talking about feelings here, not facts.
The hilite here is the key. I'm engaging in this thread
specifically because it's on a skeptics forum. I know the generic twitter arguments already, and don't waste any more time with their endless and mindless repetition. It's specifically the critical arguments that we pride ourselves for championing that should make the discussion unique.
But to your point: the feels is reals. Totally get that. And that's precisely where the skepticism should kick in. Are the feels right, or is the reality right? And what is the reality? As I've said before, it was only in this discussion that I found out that in my US State, any boy that claims to be a girl can walk right in the girl's showers, and the school cannot do a damn thing about it. Yet I cannot find one reported instance of it happening (and keep in mind, I'm not saying
documented, just reported in any way). My skepticism tells me that a nasty bad guy doesn't care whether the unlocked door says he can go in or not, and the milquetoast bad guy is afraid of getting beaten into the ICU if he gets caught by the women's SOs who may be closer than the bad guy realizes. The bad guys don't take advantage of open gender policies because they don't actually gain any advantage, as odd as that sounds.
Like, bad guys think in terms of what might happen to them extrajudiciously, not what some court or cop may or may not do. The bad guy is more worried that someone like me (or several of us in the adjacent men's room) is nearby who will beat him into the ICU and put our own knife in his hand for when the cops get there, so we can say he was attacking with a weapon. I firmly believe that it's the same reason NJ boys aren't jumping in the girl's shower- those girls have boyfriends that will beat them into a wheelchair, and they damn right well know it. So the lack of evidence is a powerhouse argument.
Internal sense of self is a feeling. By your definition, gender is a feeling. A biological male who feels like a women and feels more comfortable in the women's bathroom vs biological females who feel uncomfortable with biological males in the women's bathroom. If the argument is that bathrooms should be segregated based on gender, not sex, we're talking about segregating based on feelings. How do we do that?
Because their core feeling should be fairly obvious in its outward expression. I mean, do we usually run around expressing ourselves as the opposite of what we are? Do you tell people you are a man and use the men's room? Or maybe that you are a platypus? That's literally it. Just put yourself in their position. They are people too, just like us.
It's possible I've missed something, but it seems like any time you're asked how one can determine another's gender, or internal sense of self, you respond with an example that involves clothing and other socially appropriate stereotypes. Apologies if I'm mistaken.
Another blacked out section.
It's a good barometer. Not foolproof, but I've never had anyone correct me on the gender I guessed, that I recall, and that's many thousands of people.
Appreciated, but again, that seems to support the point that you can't always accurately judge a person's internal sense of self based on their external appearance or behavior. Whereas most people can accurately judge a person's sex.
Agreed. The issue remains that is simplicity what we are looking for, or observation of our discrimination laws? Methinks the latter.
I don't agree with your premise or phrasing, but let's run with that anyway. Another point on the spectrum. Sure. So where on the spectrum does one have to be to use one bathroom or the other? Sex is binary. That's clear cut. If gender is a spectrum, that makes things far less definitive.
It does (which is another reason I don't agree with nonbinary people or Magpie-kins or any of the other Planet X options). We have two restrooms, not an infinite amount. Ya gots ta pick a team.
Not sure I agree that the government started it. Pretty sure the terms sex and gender were considered synonymous long before the government got involved in anything. Regardless, the fact that #1 ends the discussion is kind of why I think it's the best definition.
Yes, it ends it. Does it end it the right way, though, or the desired and convenient way for only one side?
What is "the guy treatment"? What if this girl in jeans and a t-shirt doesn't want "the guy treatment"?
She likely wouldn't be getting it. As I said earlier, jeans and a T is unisex, and not enough to call it. The overall vibe is going to kick in, like are the jeans in the form fitting type favored by women, or baggy carpenter jeans? Mannerisms, makeup, all that kicks in. It's not one-factor simplicity.
Or the girl treatment, for that matter, if by that you mean silly stuff like holding open doors. I let my boyfriend hold doors open for me, but only because I know it makes him happy to do so. And I make sure to get to enough doors ahead of him that I can open doors for HIM nearly as often. I hold doors open for everyone because I like being nice to people.
#MeToo. But there are a few subtle differences. Like, when I hold a door for a guy, it's usually just holding it long enough till he reaches it, then he grabs it with a quick grunt, and I grunt back. For a lady, the chivalry kicks in and they get the doorman treatment (although I make a point of looking in some completely other direction than at them). I don't recall many women at all holding a door open for me. Some will do the guy thing and hold it just long enough that it doesn't slam in my face (as long as I grab it in time).
I've been trying to determine whether or not I treat people differently based on either sex or gender. Sex, yes. As a woman, I kind of have to in some contexts. The same way men have to treat women differently in some contexts; you've given examples of this. Gender, I really don't think I do.
#2 and #3 are things that I've been fighting against my whole life. I want to get rid of social stereotypes and social roles, not reinforce those walls.
Word.
I don't thinks it's as reliable as you think.
Nope, I'm still curious and confused, but I very much appreciate the conversation.
Nice to talk it out instead of battle it, agreed.
I went to Catholic school for grades 1-8 and a Lutheran high school for grades 9-12. When we went to church, my family went to a Lutheran one, but I wasn't raised strongly anything religious. I never received my first holy communion and was never confirmed, so when I attended a Catholic church for school, I didn't go to communion and I've never gone to confession. My much faded recollection is that you have to have done the ceremonies/received the sacraments to participate in those sorts of things. Even in the Lutheran church where there are no sacraments and I've been told I'm welcome to go to communion with everyone else, I politely opt out. As an atheist, it doesn't feel right. I don't make a stink, though, I just quietly sit in the pew with my head down.
My point is that there's middle ground between "raising a stink" and politely opting out. Don't ask me what that is in terms of pronouns, but it feels like an important distinction.
Again, agreed. Some posters here are super uptight about their every word being evaluated as their very essence being judged. I don't find it to be all that big of a deal. When I go to Mexico or France, I try my damndest to speak the language and observe the customs. I don't think that is denying the reality that I'm an English speaking American, although I guess they think so.
What makes you think it's not serious? Alternately, why shouldn't we? Pronouns seem like they should be a harmless concession, but slippery slopes and narrow wedges and all that jazz.
The slippery slope is fallacious reasoning for a very good reason.
Me, I just very much have trouble using pronouns that are contrary to what my eyes observe. I have a biologically female friend who is trans, and she's... nope. Never mind. I was going to use that friend as an example of someone who's taken enough testosterone to pass well enough that I think of her as male, but my brain betrayed me and my fingers typed "she" before I could mentally correct myself.
Totally understandable, and #MeToo.
As an aside, I typed this next bit because it felt important when I was replying to the first quote about internal sense of self not necessarily matching the external, but darned if I know where I was going with it. With apologies in advance for potentially oversharing for no good reason.
After college, I spend a few years seriously wondering whether or not I might be trans. I don't mean like a passing thought here or there, but a few years of indecision and soul searching. I was involved in the body modification community; a community where people who weren't happy with their appearance, whose internal sense of self didn't match the outside, didn't hesitate to change the outside. For some, it was just piercings and tattoos, often the kind and quantity that are considered socially appropriate, but also the kind and quantity that are considered extreme. For others, it was castration and genital surgery, or filed teeth to look like fangs, surgically pointed ears, and dermal implants to look like whiskers. It was a community where anything outside of the social norm was celebrated, and encouraged, even. There were a lot of folks saying things to me like, "If you like looking like a man, maybe you are a man."
As someone who's never felt particularly feminine, who feels like my body doesn't match my internal sense of self (not in terms of genitals but in terms of overall shape and size), and who tends to have more in common with the guys than the gals, it wouldn't have been a big leap. After a lot of research and introspection and discussions with trans people, I decided that I can like masculine things without wanting to be a man, because as much as I dislike many of the trappings of being female, I didn't really want to be a man.
I think I'm lucky I wasn't born later than I was because younger me with internet access would have been very vulnerable to being convinced of being trans when I'm really not.
That is insightful, and thanks for that. It's some really good food for thought.
eta: just having some fun- lately when any sales associate calls me 'sir' (which I hate, not being Knighted), I respond with 'Don't misgender me, bigot'. It gets a nervous laugh, as I'm not smiling when I say it.
