Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Ziggurat]

My full post was

So smartcooky definitely is mixing sex and gender in that statement, contrary to what you think. You snipped my post but do you have an answer to the full post?

You keep saying that "woman" and "man" refer to genders, but not everyone agrees with that. In particular, smartcooky doesn't agree with that. Only some people use them to refer to gender and not sex, and that's a pretty recent usage. You don't get to substitute your definition into someone else's statement when they were using a different definition.

And you're in no position to demand answers from anyone, since you still can't figure out that this fight is about conflicting goals. Not once have you actually addressed that fundamental reality.

 

[p0lka]

I agree, on the whole. We just have to be careful to understand the complexity of gender and social gender roles, and how we define those. What is a role? A behaviour. I'm sure you and I both want the role of police officer to be available to both sexes, so that kind of behaviour we can think of as a social gender role that was at one time reserved for males and denied females. We want gender role equality.

But we (I hope you agree) don't want all behaviours to be equally acceptable or available to either sex. I don't want males (I'll use my terms: men) 'chestfeeding' or menstruating or getting pregnant, nor do I want them simulating those things in their delusion. I don't even want medical science to waste resources on trying to make those possible. We might designate those behaviours, then as 'sex roles'.

Yes. But that doesn't answer my question. Are those males who take on women's gender roles 'men', and vice versa? That is what your statements about labels of toilets seemed to suggest. You would label one of them "Females only" admitting people (whom you describe as men according to gender roles) because they are female.

no? A female only private space would exclude all non females, gender is irrelevent as the private spaces would be sex only. I suppose you could add an extra gender sign if the private space wanted to include people who do that. Maybe build Gender private spaces man/woman' and see them argue as much as everyone else does.

If that doesn't describe your view, what is it, and why doesn't it make more sense to stick to the ancient definitions of men and women, as terms expressing sex? This still allows men to wear dresses and women to go to war, equality of social gender roles.

Because society has observably got to the point where gender and sex is separating, whether due to social media or just building up enough mass who knows, but it's happening.

I agree. In fact, I'd say gender doesn't exist, there are just behaviours that we associate with one sex or the other, some of which either sex can, and should be able to, exhibit (i.e., we should loosen those associations) and some of which are, and should remain, the remit of one or other sex.

This is further complicated by the existence of behaviours that either sex can physically accomplish (walking through a door into a particular room; using a shower; joining a particular sports team, scientific study or social group) that the law ought to separate by sex, because of the different needs and wishes of the two sexes.

I wish gender and gender roles did not exist, most people don't notice them as they naturally conform to them.
Some people notice them and say no thanks,
a lot of people notice them and then think that they are fighting against society by picking the opposite gender role and not conforming, when in fact they are still conforming to society.

 

[p0lka]

You keep saying that "woman" and "man" refer to genders, but not everyone agrees with that. In particular, smartcooky doesn't agree with that. Only some people use them to refer to gender and not sex, and that's a pretty recent usage. You don't get to substitute your definition into someone else's statement when they were using a different definition.

And you're in no position to demand answers from anyone, since you still can't figure out that this fight is about conflicting goals. Not once have you actually addressed that fundamental reality.

My whole point so far was that it would be clearer and better to call it 'female' instead of 'woman', if you or smartcooky or anyone replies to that statement mixing up man female woman in the same sentence then er.

Why would it be called "Women only: You must be a biological female to enter this space", when it can just be called 'female only' ?

 

[Ziggurat]

My whole point so far was that it would be clearer and better to call it 'female' instead of 'woman',

I know. And you're wrong. Get a clue. This fight isn't about words, it's about goals.

 

[p0lka]

I know. And you're wrong. Get a clue. This fight isn't about words, it's about goals.

I could keep stating you are wrong too
but I won't do that as that would require evidence and as it hasn't actually happened yet there is none,
T'is but a hypothesis,
where's your evidence?

 

[Ziggurat]

where's your evidence?

You have been presented with evidence time and time again of trans people claiming to be the opposite sex, not just gender. You keep ignoring it.

And only an idiot would fail to understand that this fight is about goals, not words. So how does this basic fact continue to elude you? You're not actually that stupid. This isn't actually an intelligence failure on your part, though it often resembles one. This is a coping mechanism. You are emotionally invested in something, I'm not sure what, that acknowledging the reality of this conflict endangers. That's the only reason for you to cling to your denialism so hard.

That, or this is performance art trolling.

 

[Thermal]

You have been presented with evidence time and time again of trans people claiming to be the opposite sex, not just gender. You keep ignoring it.

And only an idiot would fail to understand that this fight is about goals, not words. So how does this basic fact continue to elude you? You're not actually that stupid. This isn't actually an intelligence failure on your part, though it often resembles one. This is a coping mechanism. You are emotionally invested in something, I'm not sure what, that acknowledging the reality of this conflict endangers. That's the only reason for you to cling to your denialism so hard.

That, or this is performance art trolling.

I'm kinda outta this, but p0lka is saying the same thing that I was saying earlier: what the harder-core/more unreasonable TRAs want is not likely to get much support if we hard line sex v gender. They have been as successful as they have by relying on their gender, not sex. Hardlining 'sex' will have the same effect that the questions in the oft-repeated British survey had when the sex distinction was clarified- support plummets.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yeah, don't word things to attempt to get through that skull of mine, just say what you see as the expression goes.

you keep mixing woman/males together in your sentences, that's literally gender and sex terms together when i think they should be separated.

edit: you didn't answer the question, hypothetically why not just call it female?

Fill in the blanks:

A mature female horse is called a _______________
A mature female chicken is called a ________________
A mature female fox is called a __________________
A mature female bovine is called a ________________
A mature female human is called a _______________

 

[Emily's Cat]

I remember Boudicca, as i recall factual things were thrown at them and they disappeared over time as the whole premise didn't really work.

edit: i think i posted in the thread at the time.

edit2: yeah they did actually believe it though didn't they

Boudicca did actually believe it. So do a surprisingly large number of males with transgender identities. That's a large part of why your proposed "just change all the labels" will not be effective. The other reason it won't be effective is that a lot of effort has been put into promoting the idea that sex in humans exists on a spectrum and isn't binary.

Look, p0lka, I get where you're coming from. And in very, very limited situations you have a point. But it isn't the solution you think it is, because it's solving for the wrong problem.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm kinda outta this, but p0lka is saying the same thing that I was saying earlier: what the harder-core/more unreasonable TRAs want is not likely to get much support if we hard line sex v gender.

Labelling bathrooms "female" does not by itself hardline sex v. gender. And you have that backwards: because the TRA's have support, they have been able to blur sex v. gender. The only way to hardline sex v. gender is to make them lose support, because as long as they have support, they will keep blurring that line. Drawing a sharp line won't make them lose support, that's just what will happen after they've already lost support.

Because this has never, ever actually been about words, or confusion about sex v. gender. It has always been about goals. Definitions and lines get drawn to match goals, not the other way around.

 

[d4m10n]

You come back after some time with the same exact proposal, even though it's already been rebutted.

I don't think it's really possible to factually rebut entirely hypothetical statements such as "If everyone thought much more clearly about the distinction between sex as a reproductive role and gender as a social role, then we'd have much less of a problem with trans issues than we do at present." Maybe that statement is true, maybe it is not—who knows? Certainly I've seen more attempts at actively muddling these issues from the Butlerian left than from anyone else, and that leads me to believe that a dose of analytic philosophy would probably be more helpful than harmful. This is why I try to make it clear which of the four senses of "gender" I'm using at any given time, for example.

Drawing a sharp line won't make them lose support, that's just what will happen after they've already lost support.

Doesn't this sort of presume people cannot ever reason their way out?

 

[John Freestone]

no?
A female only private space would exclude all non females, gender is irrelevent as the private spaces would be sex only.

So - the question you keep evading - this again suggests that your terminology includes "female man" and "male woman". All the people in the male toilets should be male, but some of them will be men and some will be women. I will now just keep stating what you believe, since you never actually confirm it and dodge the question. Admittedly, I give you excuses every time by asking two or three at once.

I suppose you could add an extra gender sign if the private space wanted to include people who do that. Maybe build Gender private spaces man/woman' and see them argue as much as everyone else does.

This again reinforces the idea - you're suggesting (not that you advocate it) a possible further subdivision in the female toilet for the men and the women (for those who "do" gender).

(Why not stick to the old definitions?) Because society has observably got to the point where gender and sex is separating, whether due to social media or just building up enough mass who knows, but it's happening.

So you wish people weren't getting into all this "gender" stuff, you don't want to have to deal with it, but you throw up your hands and advocate it "because it's happening". You might say you don't advocate it, you resent it, but if you keep saying there are female men and male women, you're definitely talking gender ideology.

I wish gender and gender roles did not exist, most people don't notice them as they naturally conform to them.

Indeed, so society should emphasize that either sex has more freedom than we tend to think, and just because a boy doesn't like football, he shouldn't start fretting that he's a girl. But accommodating the gender-ideological wishy-washy redefinition of "man", "woman", "boy" and "girl" is a terrible way to try to accomplish that. The way to accomplish it is to affirm that all women are female, and all men are male - these are simple biological facts we can't change, and if we have some (in my view, fanciful) notions of our 'gender' and its expression or preferred roles, those have nothing to do with whether we're actually a man or woman. JFC, I can't believe I'm actually having this conversation with someone who's fed up with the entrenched gender roles, and thinks the way forward is to let some females be 'men'! Why would they be 'men', because they like football?!

Some people notice them and say no thanks,

Great! More power to us all!

a lot of people notice them and then think that they are fighting against society by picking the opposite gender role and not conforming, when in fact they are still conforming to society.

Yes, that's the problem. Caveat: I don't think there are actual 'gender roles', and I suspect you mean the same. There are behaviours that are commonly associated with one sex or the other. Hence, as you say, some people try to be non-conforming and adopt behaviours typical of the opposite sex. And a large proportion of them say that's because, although they're "male" (e.g.), they are in fact "a woman". This language is what you are colluding with.

I also agree with the opposite criticism leveled at you, that if you think this is a solution to gender idiocy, and enforcing "male" and "female" this and that, you've not understood the political forces at play, and there are plenty of TIMs who assert they are not just women but female, and vice versa.

 

[theprestige]

I don't think it's really possible to factually rebut entirely hypothetical statements such as "If everyone thought much more clearly about the distinction between sex as a reproductive role and gender as a social role, then we'd have much less of a problem with trans issues than we do at present." Maybe that statement is true, maybe it is not—who knows? Certainly I've seen more attempts at actively muddling these issues from the Butlerian left than from anyone else, and that leads me to believe that a dose of analytic philosophy would probably be more helpful than harmful. This is why I try to make it clear which of the four senses of "gender" I'm using at any given time, for example.

Doesn't this sort of presume people cannot ever reason their way out?

I don't thin it's really possible to prove entirely such hypothetical statements as "If everyone thought much more clearly about the distinction between sex as a reproductive role and gender as a social role, then we'd have much less of a problem with trans issues than we do at present."

p0lka has made predictive claims. He has been rebutted by factual counter-examples. Are those examples conclusive? Maybe not. But they still need to be addressed.

I presume that people can indeed reason their way out. But reasoning requires progress. Nobody can reason their way out - through - a problem by ignoring rebuttals to their original claim, and making that same claim over and over without modification in the face of dissent. I presume that p0lka can reason his way through, but that for some reason he chooses not to.

 

[d4m10n]

p0lka has made predictive claims. He has been rebutted by factual counter-examples.

Fair enough, but I think @p0lka is on to something nonetheless. Possibly their specific claims are a bit too facile, but if they are meant to convey the idea that we'd be in much less of a mess if we'd been clearer in our thinking about what makes sex different than gender, then I'm going to sign up for that idea even while I remain skeptical of certain specific predictions (e.g. whether signage alone would fix anything).

 

[Thermal]

Labelling bathrooms "female" does not by itself hardline sex v. gender. And you have that backwards: because the TRA's have support, they have been able to blur sex v. gender. The only way to hardline sex v. gender is to make them lose support, because as long as they have support, they will keep blurring that line. Drawing a sharp line won't make them lose support, that's just what will happen after they've already lost support.

Because this has never, ever actually been about words, or confusion about sex v. gender. It has always been about goals. Definitions and lines get drawn to match goals, not the other way around.

While I get your point, I don't think it has teeth. For starters, who are these omnipotent TRAs? I'm not convinced there are any with influence, nor have I read the works or words of any. The idea of gender as being more significant than it was prreviously realized gets presented, and the argument proceeds without anyone feeding into it. Like, I don't recall a single advocate presenting a single persuasive argument to yours truly, and when they are presented (ie: a guy wanting a bikini wax or gynecological exam), it falls flat. The extreme positions being relied on are not really the core of the debate. They are fringe matrers.

 

[Ziggurat]

Fair enough, but I think @p0lka is on to something nonetheless. Possibly their specific claims are a bit too facile, but if they are meant to convey the idea that we'd be in much less of a mess if we'd been clearer in our thinking about what makes sex different than gender, then I'm going to sign up for that idea even while I remain skeptical of certain specific predictions (e.g. whether signage alone would fix anything).

This is true but sort of irrelevant. Yes, TRAs wouldn't be TRAs if they thought clearly about sex vs gender. But you can't get a TRA to not be a TRA by clarifying sex vs gender, because they didn't become TRAs by simply being confused about sex vs gender. Most TRAs become TRAs by signing up for an entire progressive world view, and the trans agenda just happens to fit nicely into that oppressor/oppressed paradigm. They aren't confused by facts such as the binary nature of sex, they reject those facts, because those facts conflict with their world view. You cannot get them to reject that world view based on facts, because they can only acknowledge those facts after they reject that world view.

The vast uncommitted middle doesn't really care about rigorous definitions on the topic either, because that's just too much work. So focusing on definitional distinctions between sex and gender won't have much traction there either. But everybody cares about outcomes. And the desired outcome of the TRA agenda is to pierce the sex segregation boundary, to allow males to enter female spaces. That's where the focus should be, because 1) that's what BOTH sides actually care about, and 2) that's what the uncommitted are also most likely to care about.

 

[John Freestone]

ETA to delete. Accidentally broke a forum rule.

 

[Ziggurat]

While I get your point, I don't think it has teeth. For starters, who are these omnipotent TRAs?

Who said anything about omnipotent? I didn't. I said they had political power. They absolutely do.

I'm not convinced there are any with influence, nor have I read the works or words of any.

We have a supreme court justice who claims not to know the definition of "woman", and you think they don't have influence? Twitter used to ban people for using the "wrong" pronouns, that's not influence? California passed laws to allow males in female prisons based on self ID and allowing schools to trans kids without parental notification, that's not influence? Sports organizations were compelled by the government to let men compete in women's categories, that's not influence?

Your metric for influence is miscalibrated.

 

[Thermal]

Fill in the blanks:

A mature female horse is called a

...horse. Not much reason to call them anything else in common usage. Not much call for playing a game of mareshoes.

A mature female chicken is called a

....chicken. Same thing. Never asked for a bucket of Kentucky Fried Hen.

A mature female fox is called a

...fox. Same thing. Further distinction arely matters outside of breeding matters.

A mature female bovine is called a

...cow. Sometimes dinner. Usually call the male ones cows too, because who the hell cares?

A mature female human is called a

...colorful and expressive variety of names, because we are multi faceted and dimensioned creatures, unlike livestock.

 

[Thermal]

Who said anything about omnipotent? I didn't. I said they had political power. They absolutely do.

{Eta: who are these puppetmasters directing the course of civilization?}

We have a supreme court justice who claims not to know the definition of "woman", and you think they don't have influence? Twitter used to ban people for using the "wrong" pronouns, that's not influence? California passed laws to allow males in female prisons based on self ID and allowing schools to trans kids without parental notification, that's not influence? Sports organizations were compelled by the government to let men compete in women's categories, that's not influence?

Your metric for influence is miscalibrated.

You keep saying 'they' like 'they' are actual people. 'They' aren't. The idea self supports, and is persuasive on its own, without these spooky TRAs with extreme views that get used to argue against the standalone idea.

"They won't be satisfied with your proposal". I don't care. The arguments here don't include them by proxy or otherwise They can argue their extreme points should they show up here.