Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[d4m10n]

You personally might have to shave to get that look, but some men get something pretty close to it naturally. But it is exceptionally rare for women to go completely bald naturally, especially if it's not from some serious health problem.

Happy to concede that there are actual sex differences in play here, I certainly could have picked a better example had I been focusing on the arbitrariness of sexed social constructs.

Social expectations develop around these biological realities. You can call this gender if you like, but it has its roots in biological differences between men and women, it's not an arbitrary social construct.

I will happily concede that many gendered social expectations are rooted in biological differences (e.g. statistical measurable differences in strength, physical aggression, and risk tolerance likely go all the way back to the era of evolutionary adaptation) but I cannot concede that every gendered social construct is non-arbitrary and traces back to some evolved physical or psychological sex differences.

Consider pretty painted toes, for example. I could accompany my wife and daughter to the nail salon where they get theirs done and the ladies there would indeed be willing to help, but I would most likely be the only male in the salon and my presence might well make the experience less fun for the usual clientele, even assuming they found me completely unthreatening. Can you come up with a story which somehow links the use of brightly colored nail polish to known underlying sex differences?

 

[smartcooky]

OK, but if she went into the barbershop I frequent, and asked for a short haircut they'd comply probably without much in the way of comment. While it caters mostly to men, I have seen a lady or two, presumably lesbians, getting "guy" style haircuts.

As far as I am aware, barber's shops and hairdressers are not sex segregated safe spaces. I get my hair cut at "Streets Ahead Air Studio", partly because Karen (the owner) is a long time friend going back many years, and partly because its only a five minute walk from where I work.

No one would bat an eye if they played on a womens softball team.

And nor should they since they are women. However, if they were a transgender identifying male, the ladies are going to notice when they see him in the changing rooms and showers.

 

[d4m10n]

Gender as a 4th definition concept has been well established going back to the 1940s

I'd be gratified and surprised if you could provide any examples from that decade.

 

[smartcooky]

Can you tell me, without referring to the sexes, what gender is?

Still haven't seen any of the equivocators and position-flippers in this thread answer John's question.

 

[lobosrul5]

As far as I am aware, barber's shops and hairdressers are not sex segregated safe spaces. I get my hair cut at "Streets Ahead Air Studio", partly because Karen (the owner) is a long time friend going back many years, and partly because its only a five minute walk from where I work.


And nor should they since they are women. However, if they were a transgender identifying male, the ladies are going to notice when they see him in the changing rooms and showers.

Usually barbers don't style women's hair in well, traditional female styles.

 

[Thermal]

Still haven't seen any of the equivocators and position-flippers in this thread answer John's question.

Then pay more attention. Gender is closely linked to sex, so to refer to it in a sexless vacuum is a nonsensical proposition, like meaninfully defining a wheel without referring to circularity.

 

[Thermal]

I'd be gratified and surprised if you could provide any examples from that decade.

Conceded, I should have said "not restricted to the first definition".

 

[Ziggurat]

Happy to concede that there are actual sex differences in play here, I certainly could have picked a better example had I been focusing on the arbitrariness of sexed social constructs.

A lot of stuff that is popularly viewed as an arbitrary social construct is layered on top of a biological reality.

Consider pretty painted toes, for example. I could accompany my wife and daughter to the nail salon where they get theirs done and the ladies there would indeed be willing to help, but I would most likely be the only male in the salon and my presence might well make the experience less fun for the usual clientele, even assuming they found me completely unthreatening. Can you come up with a story which somehow links the use of brightly colored nail polish to known underlying sex differences?

Partly. And it's not just nails, it's many forms of decorative cosmetics and dress. These sorts of visual displays signal that the wearer doesn't do physical work, because they would interfere with or get ruined by physical work. For women, not having to do physical work is a status signifier: their status makes physical work unnecessary. And there is a sex difference in whether or not a person has to do physical work. Many women can escape physical labor through a male partner. But men very rarely can escape physical labor through a female partner, so it's less of a status marker. That divide does have a biological basis. So the incentive to signal that isn't symmetric between the sexes.

There are ways that males can escape physical labor, though. Nobility was one of them. And not unsurprisingly, male nobility would actually "peacock" with makeup and fanciful dress. Look up some paintings of any of the later French kings to see this in action.

The specifics of the forms of peacocking that develop can be very arbitrary indeed, and it's not entirely one-sided, but it's not completely divorced from sex differences either.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Do what I'm saying and none of that would happen? It seems you're wrapped up in the supposed fight about who claims 'woman' rather than seeing the bigger picture.

I'm quite tired of males demanding that females must surrender the word "woman" so that males with identity issues can feel better about themselves. Like, why do you think your assertion that females should just shut up and let some males take the word that describes our sex? Why do you feel entitled to give away what was never yours in the first place?

 

[Emily's Cat]

"Restrooms have never been strictly segregated."

-Western civilization, certainly

You know you're equivocating, don't you?

We didn't have STRICT LEGALLY REQUIRED sex separation of intimate spaces, because we didn't need to. Social convention and standard practice was sufficient to ensure that intimate spaces were separated on the basis of sex without *needing* a law at all. The only reason we need a law now is because some males decided that they really, really, really want to be in female spaces, and were quite content to ◊◊◊◊ over females in order to get their way.

You keep equivocating by pretending that the lack of laws pertaining to intimate spaces means that those spaces have always allowed males to use them at their whim. And you know goddamned good and well that your implication is false.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Eta: I don't think it's at all wrong to say "to support the rights of women for their modesty, we need to create strictly sex segregated private spaces." That's a far cry from "gender isn't real, and they're mentally ill or perverts anyway".

Is it your position that there are no males with transgender identities who are mentally ill? And that there are no males with transgender identities who are perverts?

 

[Emily's Cat]

When we talk about mice, I don't recall such heated defining over whether we mean a small rodent or a computer accessory.

Probably because nobody has been pretending that computer accessories eat holes in the wall, nor is anyone pretending that small rodents control the pointer on your monitor.

 

[Ziggurat]

We didn't have STRICT LEGALLY REQUIRED sex separation of intimate spaces, because we didn't need to. Social convention and standard practice was sufficient to ensure that intimate spaces were separated on the basis of sex without *needing* a law at all.

Also note that the law would back up property owner rights when property owners wanted to require sex segregation in bathrooms and changing rooms. So in that sense, we did have legal enforcement of sex segregation.

 

[d4m10n]

That's a far cry from "gender isn't real, and they're mentally ill or perverts anyway".

Is it your position that there are no males with transgender identities who are mentally ill?

Just to interject a couple of points.

1) There is nothing morally wrong with having a mental illness, even a serious one.

2) It's probably just fine to call every known form of dysphoria a mental illness, given the usual clinical sense of that phrase.

 

[Thermal]

I'm quite tired of males demanding that females must surrender the word "woman" so that males with identity issues can feel better about themselves. Like, why do you think your assertion that females should just shut up and let some males take the word that describes our sex? Why do you feel entitled to give away what was never yours in the first place?

I'm not hearing similar indignation about transmen taking "men's words"? While we're at it, imma throw a fit because 'human' and 'woman' and 'mankind' stole our special word. Hey, you stole the 'male' to use in 'female'.Where's my clutching pearls?

EC, you're not 'giving up' anything, or having anything taken away from you. This is ridiculous.

 

[Thermal]

You know you're equivocating, don't you?

We didn't have STRICT LEGALLY REQUIRED sex separation of intimate spaces, because we didn't need to. Social convention and standard practice was sufficient to ensure that intimate spaces were separated on the basis of sex without *needing* a law at all. The only reason we need a law now is because some males decided that they really, really, really want to be in female spaces, and were quite content to ◊◊◊◊ over females in order to get their way.

You keep equivocating by pretending that the lack of laws pertaining to intimate spaces means that those spaces have always allowed males to use them at their whim. And you know goddamned good and well that your implication is false.

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I'm contesting the begged question that anything was ever carved in stone to the point where it would need to be 'overridden'. It's always been overwhelmingly sex=gender, and a very rare nonconformist here and there, and no one throwing a fit because a woman was in the men's room.

And before you say it, let me cut to the chase:

"But those trannys rape and kill the women!"
"We are not seeing that."
"But I mean the imposter trannys will rape and kill the women!"
"We are not seeing that either."
"But I mean that they make me uncomfortable!"
"We are all uncomfortable around some people sometimes."

And on and on we go. The bottom line is you don't like them or trust them and don't want them around. Which is fine. I just wish we would stop.playing this game where it's always something else that's the real reason.

 

[Ziggurat]

Bull ◊◊◊◊. I'm contesting the begged question that anything was ever carved in stone to the point where it would need to be 'overridden'. It's always been overwhelmingly sex=gender, and a very rare nonconformist here and there, and no one throwing a fit because a woman was in the men's room.

This is a remarkable assertion. If no one objected to women being in the men's room, then why would anyone object to transwomen in the men's room? And if no one is objecting to transwomen in the men's room, then why do they need to use the women's room?

Plus, don't think it went unnoticed that you said women in the men's room rather than men in the women's room. Was this a bait and switch, or was this a mistake because you're bad at communication?

The bottom line is you don't like them or trust them and don't want them around. Which is fine. I just wish we would stop.playing this game where it's always something else that's the real reason.

Liking is irrelevant. But the fact that women do not trust males in their intimate spaces is not something we've ever denied. The fact that women do not want males in their intimate spaces is not something we've ever denied. You act like this is some sort of gocha, but it's not.

 

[smartcooky]

Then pay more attention. Gender is closely linked to sex, so to refer to it in a sexless vacuum is a nonsensical proposition, like meaninfully defining a wheel without referring to circularity.

If someone (i.e. @p0lka) is going argue that sex and gender need to be separated to the point where they are treated completely differently, then they need to be able to define gender without reference to sex. If they cannot then their argument becomes a nonsense.

 

[d4m10n]

I'm not hearing similar indignation about transmen taking "men's words"?

I've not seen any high-profile examples of men being categorically erased the way women have often been.

 

[John Freestone]

We may elide over the middle bit, but by assigning distinct roles based on sex (e.g. softball leagues & locker rooms for girls not boys) we have perpetrated gender₃ even if we choose to refrain from labeling it as such. Sexed roles are simply what the word means when used in this third sense.

OK, I'm happy to concede that's what the word means in one of its defined senses in dictionaries. I return to my view that its use now - as 1, 2, or 3 - has been so corrupted by its use as 4 by the TRAs that it doesn't help to try to rein it in anymore. We just end up saying the reason we make girls play softball is because of their gender, and we're back to the conflation that's so unhelpful, opening the door for boys to claim they have a feminine gender and thus should be able to play softball with the biologically sexed girls.

Let me back up just a bit to explain my thinking on this. I'd argue that gender₂ and gender₃ are almost invariably intertwined because people first observe patterns of sexed behavior (sense 2) and later they tend to socially (or sometimes legally) enforce and perpetuate those patterns (sense 3) unless they've been raised by hardcore feminists who've taught them to observe and subvert rather than follow the usual pattern by which social norms are perpetuated down the generations.

Agreed.

To take a relatively benign example, the haircut I'm sporting in my current profile photo is easy to get at my local barbershop for men—no questions asked nor eyebrows raised. If my wife went in to her stylist (Jana) and asked for the same cut, Jana would text the ladies' group chat to come help my wife work through whatever stressful events somehow had led her to this unusual decision. Shaving one's pate is unnatural for men and women, but only one of the two sexes is generally expected to keep a full head of beautiful hair at all times. That's both gender₂ in the sense that we interpret hairstyles as somehow signaling masculinity or femininity, but it's also gender₃ in the sense that we reinforce these sexed stereotypes by treating men and women differently (e.g. basic trainees get their heads shorn completely if they are male, cut short if they are female).

I'm not sure examples help delineate our differences. Sports, haircuts, toilet decor... I get it. We observe and expect and enforce different things for each sex. You call that social process 'gender'. We should just agree to disagree, I think.

Okay, back to your question. Keeping activities separate by sex (such as the softball/baseball distinction) is gender₂ when we think of one as feminine "for girls" and the other as masculine "for boys" and it is gender₃ when we enforce those sexed social roles (e.g. only natal females are allowed to compete in many softball tournaments). This is true even when the competitions look practically the same—aside from considerations of strength and speed—as in rugby, or when the facilities offered are practically identical.

And that answers my question how? You're saying this separation by sex is called gender. I'm saying "what difference does it make?" and "'Gender' is cemtex; it's the central concept that 'gender identity' relies on." So it makes sense to me to avoid using the word. If you try (other than when we're discussing the word!) you'll find it's quite easy. Do you see my second point, that it keeps enabling 'gender identity' even if we know we're using it in another sense?

One way to feel the full force of gender₃ in everyday life is to try to violate the norms of sexed spaces in situations where an act utilitarian wouldn't see any real downside. For example, one of my favorite old Italian places has two one-toilet bathrooms which cannot practically serve more than one adult at a time. They could have decorated them identically and slapped some unisex signage on them, but instead they decorated them quite differently and assigned one to men and one to women. This results in the usual stupid inefficiencies; it isn't remotely uncommon to see a female patron waiting for the women's bathroom while the men's is clearly available and directly across the hallway. All she has to do is ignore the prevailing social norm and step into the men's room! Aside from having to tolerate a fair bit of heteronormative pin-up art, she will find herself none the worse for wear (unless she was hoping to dispose of feminine hygiene products in one of those little metal bins, but let's put that scenario aside for the moment). The reverse situation is observed less frequently, but I've occasionally felt compelled to wait uncomfortably on the men's room because I was unwilling to use the women's, even though the door was ajar and the light off.
Behold, the power of gender₃!

I behold you giving it power.

To bring this back to main stream of this thread, I'd argue that at least part of the reason why we find ourselves faced with people like Merager hanging dong in the company of nonconsenting women and girls and people like Yaniv suing estheticians for refusing to handle her feminine testicles is that we've significantly weakened gender₃ by muddling minds with the core ideas of gender ideology.

Yes, agreed, and that is for the reason I've given. If you keep using a word that a set of people are determined to corrupt, you have either the endless task of adding your definition every time and making a point of undermining theirs every time they use it, or you just stop playing the game and use a perfectly good form of words that does the same job. That gives everyone a clear understanding. I don't see what's to lose.