Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

Then shoosh about it. If you're not offended, and we're not offended, and nobody in this thread is personally offended... why are you so dead-set on forcing us to comply with the preferred and privileged nomenclature of people who aren't here?

Next thing you know, you'll be giving me hell for calling Mary by their given name of Mary, and leaving out the religion-specific, faith-based honorific of "Sister" in front of it, even though 1) Mary isn't participating in our conversation and 2) nobody in this discussion is catholic, and 3) I believe that everyone in this discussion is agnostic or atheistic and doesn't follow any religious tenets.

You can do what you like. I'm just making it clear (on the off chance thar someone is genuinely not aware of it) that you are choosing to use derogatory language. That's fine, knock yourself out. Just knock the self righteous halo off your head while you do so.

 

[p0lka]

You're taking too short a look.

Back in the 60s (?) second wave feminists put a fair bit of effort into prying gender roles and gender expression out of sex. The core of the argument was that females are biologically different from males, but that those differences do not and should not be used to prescribe our behaviors, careers, and capabilities. The premise was that females can be doctors and CEOs and politicians just as males can, and that there's nothing inherent in being female that precludes us from participating in society on an equal basis, being paid equivalently for equivalent work, and being recognized as fully developed humans in our own right. Those feminists argued that the set of items that fall under "gender" are those that are socially constructed and fluid. Who should do the dishes, who should wear skirts, who is expected to be obsequious and to give way to the desires of others, who is expected to be quiet and soft-spoken, who is expected to be indecisive, who is expected to focus all of their attention on children and the home, etc.

The intention was a good one, and it was instrumental in the leaps that females made in the 80s and 90s, breaking into politics and business leadership roles, and otherwise shattering that glass ceiling (or at least chipping away substantially).

Then, in the late 90s, early 00s, the activists got hold of that notion and ran with it. They repurposed the word "gender" to no longer refer to socially constructed roles and behavioral expectations... but rather to be synonymous with the relatively new concept of "gender identity". They started their efforts by heavily stressing that sex and gender are different, going so far as to attempt to say that the two are entirely unrelated. This allowed them to take the position that some males are "women" and some females are "men" based on their adopted "gender" regardless of their sex.

Then they shifted the goalposts, and started replacing sex with gender in language, policy, and law... and have now come full circle to squashing the two back together in a really nefarious way.

1) Feminists draw a distinction between gender and sex in order to remove social barriers for females
2) Trans activists expand the separation between gender and sex and argue that gender can be completely independent of sex
3) Trans activists substitute gender for sex in language, policy, and law; at a minimum they add "gender identity" to existing law as being synonymous with sex

What you're arguing for is to regress to step 2 above. I'm more inclined to revisit step 1, and just flat out say that gender is completely irrelevant in language, policy, and law, and that the words "woman" and "man" are understood to mean sex in common usage.

Thanks for that. I'm with 2 but with the proviso that you separate gender and sex to the point that one of them has no meaning on the other unless you want it to.
If you want to separate according to sex then use sex labels for your public spaces, only use gender labels if they are included.

I personally think the whole 'being a gender' thing is like a richard dawkins meme sort of thing as society is hooked. Society is hooked though.

3 is the problem that society seems to be having at the moment as it didn't do 2 first.

 

[Thermal]

It's reality based because you can't transition to male or from male as we don't have that technology yet. No one can change their sex. For someone to think it meant that, well I don't know what to do with that.

It is argued (by some) that you can do exactly that. That's why introducing new terms is unhelpful.

MtF and FtM are probably as clear and neutral terms as we can get, although men/women might be better than male/female. The non-negotiable part is when one side says 'I feel like that particular term is meant to be insulting' and the other says 'yeah ◊◊◊◊ off, we like to be insulting'.

Them's the lines, you choose your armband and rock it with pride.

 

[p0lka]

Say, from more than 20 years ago.

Why are you using "they" pronouns for him?

Oh. That's why.

You keep proving that you don't know anything about this issue. But yes, you absolutely can have an example.

https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB132/id/2210293

According to this law, the gender of anyone in California Department of Corrections custody is whatever they say it is. Note also that prisoners get housed in men's or women's prisons according to their preference. Not even according to their self-declared gender, just their preference.

That is literally mixing gender and sex together, how can you not see that?

 

[Thermal]

You're the one committed to demanding that I only be able to refer to males of the human species who identify themselves as being transgender with words that imply they're actually and for realsies "women", and that my refusal to do so is horrifically and unforgiveably derogatory.

I demand nothing. Choose what you like, but own your chosen slur, and for damn sure don't get preachy with me about the terms I use.

Through several identical exchanges, you always seem to skip this bit. How about you give it a go: Give me an acceptable term to refer to males who identify themselves as transgender that does NOT include the term "woman" in any form. I'll happily use an alternative that conveys biological reality in a way that is clear, unconfusing, and accurate.

All I'm waiting for is a reasonable suggestion from you or those for whom you stan.

Gave you some earlier, that you surprisingly agreed to if a little reluctantly (and I kind of agree with that): MtF and FtM.

Eta: note you ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ lied again, saying you were still waiting for something I immediately gave you and you accepted.

 

[Ziggurat]

That is literally mixing gender and sex together, how can you not see that?

That is literally not.

 

[p0lka]

It is argued (by some) that you can do exactly that. That's why introducing new terms is unhelpful.

MtF and FtM are probably as clear and neutral terms as we can get, although men/women might be better than male/female. The non-negotiable part is when one side says 'I feel like that particular term is meant to be insulting' and the other says 'yeah ◊◊◊◊ off, we like to be insulting'.

Them's the lines, you choose your armband and rock it with pride.

Some people care about other people and some people don't, it's what we humans are.

 

[Ziggurat]

MtF and FtM are probably as clear and neutral terms as we can get

They are clear, but they are not neutral. They imply that you can change your sex.

You cannot change your sex.

 

[p0lka]

That is literally not.

well type a bit of it and i'll show you.

 

[Thermal]

It clears it up admirably... unless you have somehow decided that humans are sequential hermaphrodites like clownfish. Thermal, have you accepted that humans can actually for realsies change their sex?

That's about the 40th time you asked that, and I've answered the same every time.

No, EC, you can't literally change your sex in any way. 'Sex change' is the generic label for cosmetic surgeries and other medical therapies to approximate the appearance of the opposite sex, and that's as far as it goes.

But I just repeat and repeat and repeat the same things to you. I don't know why you are so dead set on trolling for months on end, but I'm done with it. See you on another discussion.

 

[Thermal]

They are clear, but they are not neutral. They imply that you can change your sex.

You cannot change your sex.

Yes thank you we all know that. I take it you are new to the imprecisions of the human languages, and how we sometimes shorthand names, even when technically misleading? Did you know a computer mouse is not actually a small rodent? 'Strue.

Eta: why did you snip out the part where I noted basically the same thing, then acted like I hadn't said it?

 

[Ziggurat]

well type a bit of it and i'll show you.

"During the initial intake and classification process, and in a private setting, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify all of the following:
(1) The individual’s gender identity of female, male, or nonbinary."

Gender identity, not sex. You cannot self declare your sex. You can self declare your gender identity. Your gender identity doesn't need to match your sex. They are therefore completely separate things.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes thank you we all know that.

Some people don't. Or at least, they pretend that they don't.

I take it you are new to the imprecisions of the human languages, and how we sometimes shorthand names, even when technically misleading? Did you know a computer mouse is not actually a small rodent? 'Strue.

You want to have your cake and eat it too (Oh look! Figurative language! No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock). You're appealing to your preferred intent for the term you like, while denying my intent for the term I like.

 

[Louden Wilde]

Thanks for that. The author of the link steven novella did a 'basically this is my position'



then went on to argue about archaeopteryx and labelling category clade genus errors, then more waffle.

Yes- the brain might exhibit sexual dimorphism in some species (as do many attributes), but it is not a sexual organ. Male and female are reproductive classes, and comparative biology makes it very clear the only definition of those two classes is based on gonads/gamete type. Novella is quite clearly wrong and Coyne pointed it out. I think it's clear the only reason Novella is suggesting it is to bolster the "female brain" in a male body idea, which is nonsense.

 

[Thermal]

Some people don't. Or at least, they pretend that they don't.

You want to have your cake and eat it too (Oh look! Figurative language! No ◊◊◊◊, Sherlock). You're appealing to your preferred intent for the term you like, while denying my intent for the term I like.

Yes, it's figurative. It pretty much has to be, for a shorthand moniker. I don't like the terms, but this weird-ass campaign you guys are on to rebrand seems entirely malicious, and not one of you has said a word to dispel that impression. Keep in mind, there are a couple ways to lobby it constructively that I can see, but you choose... the one you choose. So be it.

 

[John Freestone]

The fact that gender is even relevent and mentioned when it comes to giving birth is because gender and sex are being mixed up.

What does gender have to do with giving birth? Nothing, as giving birth is a sexed based activity.

Sometimes it's hard to see the wood from the trees, as the expression goes.

We're talking at cross purposes, perhaps. The fact that a self-identified "man" can be in hospital giving birth is because gender (the man-ness of the man, as she thinks she is) has been separated from the sex (the real bit, the woman giving birth). You keep conceiving of "gender as a synonym for sex" as somehow "mixing them up." What the statement "gender is another word for sex" means is that men/males can't give birth. Gender being one thing while sex is another allows "men" (by your own definition of such) to give birth, because their gender is "man" while their sex is "female". You are perfectly happy with the statement, "Men can give birth to babies," precisely because you separate the meanings of gender and sex.

I can see where you're coming from. Such a "trans man" goes to hospital and says she is a man with pronouns he/him, and that this is her gender, and everyone agrees, so you think that means gender hasn't been divorced from sex. But clearly it must, because men can't give birth. Sure, there's a mixing up of terms at the point of delivery (so to speak), but the word, "gender" (as it relates to someone's identity) is being used in opposition to, or independent of the actual, biological sex. That is the separation. You are in favour of it.

Get it through your head that a word is a mere token of something. So if we have a hundred words for the same thing, there can be no problem at all. The thing doesn't change. And if everyone knows that the words mean that very same thing, what's the harm? A "trans man" would have a female gender as well as a female sex, obviously. Separate them, and she can suddenly have a male gender and a female sex, and then you have long, tedious posts in long tedious threads like this one (not to mention all the kids getting hacked to pieces).

FFS, wake the ◊◊◊◊ up.

 

[p0lka]

"Female" is insufficient on its own, or without additional terms to add specificity. "Female" is a term that applies to every member of ANY anisogamous species that has the body type that evolved to produce large gametes. It's just as apt a term for horses and geese and clownfish and ivy as it is for humans.

Yeah female means a specific thing.

If you want to separate a herd, you don't say "adult female equines in the west pasture, adult male equines in the north pasture". You can simply say "mares to the west, stallions to the north". Similarly, if you want to talk about where your eggs come from, we don't need to painstakingly talk about the "adult female chicken coop" whence they're collected. Rather, we can just reference the hen coop.

If you want to separate a herd, saying 'females in the west pasture' and 'males in the north pasture' uses less words than what you're adding on to make a point that fails at the first hurdle, then you give that example by swapping in gender labels and saying it as efficiently as I just did.
Also hens and roosters...no one expects eggs from a rooster.

Hey, did you know that nearly all of the beef you buy at the grocery comes from castrated young adult male bovines? And almost all of the chicken mean comes from recently post-pubertal male chickens? Do you really think that makes communication clearer and easier for most people?

Farm animals aren't part of a society where they get to think about the sex roles society pushes upon them and then to fight against it and create a new concept, so I don't think they care what you refer to them as?

 

[John Freestone]

It seems rather bizarre to treat this as if it were a factual or moral question.

There is no correctness or incorrectness to be had here, only collections of people deciding how best to allocate shared resources given disparate values amongst service users and patrons. If owners want to sort their gyms and spas by sex, that is just fine with me. If they would rather sort by gender identity, I'll probably just take my business elsewhere. It's a free country, or at least it should be.

I oppose the intersectional feminists who hope to judicially impose a gender-based approach on everyone, but I also oppose the second wave feminists who expect everyone to conform to their sex-based approach. Both of these groups are too authoritarian for my taste, since they refuse to allow alternative approaches even when they already have at least some of their own spaces operating in the way they would prefer.

I disagree. The stakes are too high. Society should not, IMHO, pander to the idea of gender identity in any shape or form (although, of course, current victims of the scam need sympathy and appropriate medical care).

It is both a factual and a moral question.

Even if we judge it by democratic wishes, we might find that the majority of people do not want to have gender-id clubs, gyms, toilets, etc., in whatever electoral area they participate in. I would vote against, and I think as the fallout of gender ideology becomes clear, most people will also be against it. It was both a stupid (non-factual) and dangerous (immoral) idea. My main reason is because of the social contagion that persuades children and young adults to identify out of their sex, with the terrible consequences we've seen (well, I have; maybe you haven't).

Perhaps more similarly and pertinently than you know, I also don't think we should license S&M clubs, or brothels, or strip joints, or DIY self-harm studios. The excuse, "but you don't have to go in," isn't always sufficient.

 

[p0lka]

"During the initial intake and classification process, and in a private setting, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall ask each individual entering into the custody of the department to specify all of the following:
(1) The individual’s gender identity of female, male, or nonbinary."

Gender identity, not sex. You cannot self declare your sex. You can self declare your gender identity. Your gender identity doesn't need to match your sex. They are therefore completely separate things.

The red highlited is literally mixing gender and sex in the same sentence how can you not see that?

I'll give you my example of what they should ask each individual entering into the custody blah blah that does not mix gender and sex, 'What is your gender?' then 'what is your sex?' it's that simple?

 

[Ziggurat]

The red highlited is literally mixing gender and sex in the same sentence how can you not see that?

Because "male" and "female" in that sentence don't mean sex. I know you think that "male" and "female" must only indicate sex, but this is a counter-example where they do not mean sex. They mean gender identity, which is clearly different than sex.

"Male" and "female" for gender still reference sex indirectly, and if that's all you mean, so the ◊◊◊◊ what? That's irrelevant. They do not mean sex. They are different than sex. Your gender identity under California law in regards to the Department of Corrections doesn't have any connection to your sex.

I'll give you my example of what they should ask each individual entering into the custody blah blah that does not mix gender and sex, 'What is your gender?' then 'what is your sex?' it's that simple?

You don't get it. They aren't going to ask, because under the law, they don't care what your sex is. They aren't mixing sex and gender because sex is irrelevant. They make that explicit:

"(c) The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not deny a search preference pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) or a housing placement pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) based on any discriminatory reason, including, but not limited to, any of the following:​

(1) The anatomy, including, but not limited to, the genitalia or other physical characteristics, of the incarcerated person."​

That there is the only place in this law which deals with sex, and it only comes into it in order to explicitly exclude it as a factor for consideration.