Disambiguating the concept of gender
(I'm new here and this is my first new discussion, so I'm not sure if I've put this in the right category. Mods please feel free to move if necessary / others let me know if I did it wrong.)
So a little background first, I'm some kind of genderqueer/genderfluid/pangender/something, and in trying to put a name to whatever I am over the years, I have long run into conceptual problems with the way the concept of gender is used and overloaded (in the technical sense of applying more than one meaning to a term) in the general discourse, both in trans-inclusive and trans-exclusive communities.
Most of the trans-exclusive communities, your usual cisheteronormative generally right-wing folks, just straight up equate sex with gender, and I don't think I really need to argue much against that view here, I hope, since it's just factually wrong. Gender is defined as something different from sex; if you just want to talk just about sex, we have the word "sex" for that (and even "sex" is a complex thing in need of disambiguation: do you mean chromosomes, hormones, primary sex characteristics, secondary, ...? because those don't all always line up and none of them are strictly binary), and the word "gender" means something else. But what else exactly does it mean?
In trans-exclusive radical feminist communities, and in some parts of academia and elsewhere, they tend to use the word "gender" in the original sense with which it was defined apart from sex, by John Money in 1950, as a social construct. In that sense, gender is something like money (no pun intended). There is nothing intrinsic to gold coins or seashells or any other token of currency that makes it "really" money, something that could be found via an empirical investigation of the currency itself. Something is only money to someone, and in saying that it is money to them, we're really saying something about them, not about the currency: we're saying they accept it in trade. If people have an argument over whether something "really is" money, they're really just expressing their differing policies on accepting it in trade: if Tumamate the Chumash tells Cortez the Spaniard that the shells for which the Chumash tribe are named "are money", and Cortez "disagrees", Tumamate is just signalling the fact that his people accept them in trade, Cortez is just signalling the fact that he does not accept them in trade.
Likewise with things like rank and title, or membership in a social clique: people may argue over whether someone is "really" a geek or is "just" a nerd, or dork, or whatever, but there are no objective empirical criteria for inclusion in those social categories, and saying someone's "not a real geek" is merely signalling non-acceptance of them in that category, not actually stating any (even purported) fact about the world. "Gender" in this sense is like that: genders like "man" and "woman", distinguished from sexes like "male" and "female", are social categories into which people can be recognized, but there is no objective reality imparted by that recognition, someone's gender just consists entirely in their being accepted as that gender. "Gender identity", in this sense of the word gender, means the social category that a person thinks of themselves in terms as, and wants others to think of them as, and disagreement about whether someone who identifies as a man or a woman "really is" one is like disagreement about whether someone who identifies as a nerd or a geek "really is" one: there is no reality to it, you're just saying you reject their self-image and don't see them that way. So people aiming to be gendered a particular way, in this sense, have to perform the role and do the presentation well enough to get other people to accept them into the category they want to be seen as, in order to "really be" that gender, because the acceptance is the entirety of the reality of it.
But in a lot of trans-inclusive communities, "gender" has come to mean something else, though it seems almost nobody distinguishes this other sense from the above sense, and arguments between e.g. transwomen and TERFs seem to stem largely from conflation of these two different senses. This newer sense is "gender" as meaning a psychological property of how you feel about the sex of your body, e.g. if you would not feel comfortable with a male body and would feel comfortable with a female body then your "gender" is "woman", if vice versa it's "man". I think that this is a very important property to keep track of, and that it needs to be separated from the above sociological property. It's important to me personally because I really don't give a damn about the sociological property above, I don't care what pronouns people call me by, I wear whatever I like without regard to how it gets me gendered by other people, but I have definite feelings about what I would like my body to be like. But perhaps for a clearer illustration than weird little old me: there are women who wear "men's" clothes and do "manly" things but have clearly feminine physiques and are recognized as woman because of them, basically tomboys. It's easy to imagine a person (and I've met some such people) born with a male body who wants to be that: still dress like a man and do manly thing, but to have a clearly female body.
I've been proposing for a while now that that last property should get a new name different from "gender", and I propose "bearing". Part of that is because gender dysphoria and euphoria are all about this property, the psychological feeling of (dis)comfort in a particular kind of body, and the root "-phor" means "to bear". (And similarly, rather than "transgender", "cisgender", etc, as values for this property, we could use "transphoric", "cisphoric", etc: "bearing across", "bearing to the same side", etc.) Also because "bearing" makes a nice navigational metaphor with "orientation": if you imagine an abstract space of sex characteristics, and a person moving about in that space, their orientation is where in that space they're facing (the type of sex they're looking at), while their bearing is where in that space they're heading (the type of sex they're aiming to be). But also, perhaps as a transitional compromise, we could just disambiguate the word "gender" between all three of these things with qualifiers: "psychological gender" for bearing, "sociological gender" for the original sense of the word, and if we really have to, "physical gender" for sex. The important part, though, is just that we keep these three different things separate: enough people already are getting out the message that the physical and sociological are separate, but I think it would do a lot of good for everyone if we could also keep the sociological and psychological separate.
(I hope I don't need to add this caveat that of course all three may have strong influences on each other, but that's besides the point that they come apart and are not one and the same thing).
So a little background first, I'm some kind of genderqueer/genderfluid/pangender/something, and in trying to put a name to whatever I am over the years, I have long run into conceptual problems with the way the concept of gender is used and overloaded (in the technical sense of applying more than one meaning to a term) in the general discourse, both in trans-inclusive and trans-exclusive communities.
Most of the trans-exclusive communities, your usual cisheteronormative generally right-wing folks, just straight up equate sex with gender, and I don't think I really need to argue much against that view here, I hope, since it's just factually wrong. Gender is defined as something different from sex; if you just want to talk just about sex, we have the word "sex" for that (and even "sex" is a complex thing in need of disambiguation: do you mean chromosomes, hormones, primary sex characteristics, secondary, ...? because those don't all always line up and none of them are strictly binary), and the word "gender" means something else. But what else exactly does it mean?
In trans-exclusive radical feminist communities, and in some parts of academia and elsewhere, they tend to use the word "gender" in the original sense with which it was defined apart from sex, by John Money in 1950, as a social construct. In that sense, gender is something like money (no pun intended). There is nothing intrinsic to gold coins or seashells or any other token of currency that makes it "really" money, something that could be found via an empirical investigation of the currency itself. Something is only money to someone, and in saying that it is money to them, we're really saying something about them, not about the currency: we're saying they accept it in trade. If people have an argument over whether something "really is" money, they're really just expressing their differing policies on accepting it in trade: if Tumamate the Chumash tells Cortez the Spaniard that the shells for which the Chumash tribe are named "are money", and Cortez "disagrees", Tumamate is just signalling the fact that his people accept them in trade, Cortez is just signalling the fact that he does not accept them in trade.
Likewise with things like rank and title, or membership in a social clique: people may argue over whether someone is "really" a geek or is "just" a nerd, or dork, or whatever, but there are no objective empirical criteria for inclusion in those social categories, and saying someone's "not a real geek" is merely signalling non-acceptance of them in that category, not actually stating any (even purported) fact about the world. "Gender" in this sense is like that: genders like "man" and "woman", distinguished from sexes like "male" and "female", are social categories into which people can be recognized, but there is no objective reality imparted by that recognition, someone's gender just consists entirely in their being accepted as that gender. "Gender identity", in this sense of the word gender, means the social category that a person thinks of themselves in terms as, and wants others to think of them as, and disagreement about whether someone who identifies as a man or a woman "really is" one is like disagreement about whether someone who identifies as a nerd or a geek "really is" one: there is no reality to it, you're just saying you reject their self-image and don't see them that way. So people aiming to be gendered a particular way, in this sense, have to perform the role and do the presentation well enough to get other people to accept them into the category they want to be seen as, in order to "really be" that gender, because the acceptance is the entirety of the reality of it.
But in a lot of trans-inclusive communities, "gender" has come to mean something else, though it seems almost nobody distinguishes this other sense from the above sense, and arguments between e.g. transwomen and TERFs seem to stem largely from conflation of these two different senses. This newer sense is "gender" as meaning a psychological property of how you feel about the sex of your body, e.g. if you would not feel comfortable with a male body and would feel comfortable with a female body then your "gender" is "woman", if vice versa it's "man". I think that this is a very important property to keep track of, and that it needs to be separated from the above sociological property. It's important to me personally because I really don't give a damn about the sociological property above, I don't care what pronouns people call me by, I wear whatever I like without regard to how it gets me gendered by other people, but I have definite feelings about what I would like my body to be like. But perhaps for a clearer illustration than weird little old me: there are women who wear "men's" clothes and do "manly" things but have clearly feminine physiques and are recognized as woman because of them, basically tomboys. It's easy to imagine a person (and I've met some such people) born with a male body who wants to be that: still dress like a man and do manly thing, but to have a clearly female body.
I've been proposing for a while now that that last property should get a new name different from "gender", and I propose "bearing". Part of that is because gender dysphoria and euphoria are all about this property, the psychological feeling of (dis)comfort in a particular kind of body, and the root "-phor" means "to bear". (And similarly, rather than "transgender", "cisgender", etc, as values for this property, we could use "transphoric", "cisphoric", etc: "bearing across", "bearing to the same side", etc.) Also because "bearing" makes a nice navigational metaphor with "orientation": if you imagine an abstract space of sex characteristics, and a person moving about in that space, their orientation is where in that space they're facing (the type of sex they're looking at), while their bearing is where in that space they're heading (the type of sex they're aiming to be). But also, perhaps as a transitional compromise, we could just disambiguate the word "gender" between all three of these things with qualifiers: "psychological gender" for bearing, "sociological gender" for the original sense of the word, and if we really have to, "physical gender" for sex. The important part, though, is just that we keep these three different things separate: enough people already are getting out the message that the physical and sociological are separate, but I think it would do a lot of good for everyone if we could also keep the sociological and psychological separate.
(I hope I don't need to add this caveat that of course all three may have strong influences on each other, but that's besides the point that they come apart and are not one and the same thing).
Comments (1359)
You cannot divorce gender from sex; but you can "not conform" to sex roles (e.g. not giving birth, not breast feeding, no reproducing, etc).
If gender is determined by necessarily sex attributes, it is, therefore assigned to corresponding to specific sex attributes (phenotypic sex attributes) first and foremost socially, culturally, etc. "Transgenders" conform via phenotypic necessary biological sex attributes (i.e. imitation) or by removal of the penis/breasts - both internal and external organs and tissues, cosmetic facial and body masculinization/feminization surgeries, etc.
How about explaining a meaningful distinction between "gender fluidity" and "transgenderism" is the term is not synonymous with transsexualism. If it is used synonymously with transsexualism then the following obtains: (trivalizing as not related to biological sex it is incoherent - most transsexuals both performatively and actively disagree with your "it's just a social thing" argument).
P1: All males and females must contain all the necessary biological attributes to be 'male' and female'.
P2: All 'males' and 'females' contain the necessary biological attributes needed "to be" 'male' and female'.
P3: A male that lacks necessary attributes necessary for to be considered 'female' is not a female.
P4: A female that contains both necessary attributes of both 'female' and 'male' is neither male or female, but intersex. QED.
P1: "Transition" denotes passing of all necessary attributes from one to another.
P2: All necessary biological attributes are 'fixed' at birth.
P3: Biological attributes cannot be 'changed' without artificial intervention/frequent injections (i.e. lacks necessary attributes) or augmentation (mimicking), therefore static biological sex cannot 'change' if necessary attributes cannot transition.
P4: "Transsexualism" (and 'trans' - genderism) is therefore incoherent. QED.
And transsexualism has yet to be demonstrated a coherent concept or at all meaningful. Neither has 'gender fluidity, genderpan,' demonstrated themselves to be meaningful terms for me.
An interesting post. It does seem that the notion of gender as purely a social construct doesn't fit properly with the way trans people experience themselves.
The question is, given your notion of a psychological gender, does it make sense to claim that there is a separate "social" gender, or do we have to conclude that viewing gender purely as a social construct is also wrong, since people seem to have a strong psychological association with a gender that cannot be adequately explained as merely an internalized social role.
Quoting Swan
Actually, you can do that very easily. Just define gender as something unrelated to sex.
Quoting Swan
This looks like gibberish to me. Why do you use the same terms, but sometimes with and sometimes without quotation marks? Why is "to be" in quotation marks in the second premise? Why are there only premises, but no conclusion?
I don't see the value of the social construct idea. That leads to strange conclusions. For example, a person of the male sex who feels strong gender dysphoria could still dress in a traditionally male way, do manly jobs, etc. As a social construct their gender would be male. But it seems to me that their gender is not male. So maybe we do need two senses of gender if people want to keep the social construct sense. I just don't see the value of that sense - why would we want to gender people in terms of behaviour and traditional roles? The polite and respectful thing to do is to gender them according to how they feel.
Quoting Swan
My understanding is that what you are talking about is being transexual, not transgender.
I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to divorce gender from sex. There certainly is a connection between the two, but that's not to say that someone who's sex is female cannot have a male gender. The American Psychological Association defines gender as:
The words are used interchangeably and synonymously to each other.
A "pre-op" transsexual (i.e. transgender) isn't a trans. It's just some gender fluid person. There is no distinction made between the two.
In the context of transsexualism you cannot. And almost all trans people would agree. That is literally why they take hormones. Biological sex is what makes a meaningful distinction.
Quoting Michael
Come on. A female butch lesbian is not a "male gender" or a man and vice versa to the effeminate gay man being a "female gender". Most would find it offensive.
A cis-woman would not claim to "feel like a woman", she would claim she is a woman, not-conforming to gender expectations would not change that.
If you distribute sex and gender characteristics of typical men and women, what you find is a large area of overlap--not just now, but in the past. So much overlap, that the most intensely heterosexual (or lesbian) masculine women are more masculine than all but the most masculine men, and the most intensely heterosexual (or gay) feminine men are more feminine than all but the most feminine women.
That's why heterosexual men can be very good caretakers and heterosexual women can be good mechanics or construction workers. That's why typical women can dig ditches and typical men can take care of a home. That's why some heterosexual men dress in female drag and why some homosexuals dress in biker drag. There are women who can beat the shit out of most men (they've got strength and aggressiveness) and there are men who make better caring nurses than most women (they've got sensitivity to emotional/physical needs).
The whole 'trans-sexual, trans-gender, gender-fluid' quest is built on the false premise that the standard definition of masculinity and femininity provided no "home" for people out on the extreme ends of the distribution. "You can be anything you want to be" is an old American meme. It isn't true, but it sounds very uplifting. So, fuck the xy and xx chromosomes, fuck the testes, ovaries, vagina, penis, beard, breasts, and build. A surgeon can whip up a penis or a vagina and the druggist can supply the missing hormones. Biology be damned!
Except biology can't be damned. XX and XY chromosomes mark every cell of the trans person (in 99.999% of the population). Males remain males and females remain females whatever the surgeon, pharmacist, or cultural theorists does. And it is unnecessary, because biology already provided for a very wide range of sexual dispositions.
All the language of the "trans" movement reflects nothing new, really. It's just a new argot and a new market. No, you are not "gender fluid" -- you are out there on the far end of the biological distribution of possibilities. ALL of us, whatever we think we are, have features that are out on the far end, too. There are extremely sharp and extremely blunt brains; there are extreme athletes; there are musicians with extreme memory capabilities; some people have perfect pitch, some people can't sing if their life depended on it. Some people hear or see far more acutely than others. Some people are extreme risk takers, others think twice about jumping over a puddle.
Each of these extreme characteristics manage to exist without a special identity, argot, or political agenda.
I think the gender identity bit has gone done a rabbit hole, but look: If I met you, I'd be polite and call you by the name you provided. If I liked you, I'd be a friend.
The psychological question regarding whether someone feels male, female or both and how that relates to gender is trickier, but again I would defer to how most of human history was spent and not what recent civilization has specified.
A related topic is the feminist view that gender is a social construct created to subject women in favor of patriarchal societies. But this wouldn't apply to hunter-gatherers, so that should be what determines the nature of gender.
Sexual orientation is a different thing again.
By whom? A cursory bit of googling will turn up overwhelming evidence of different usage.
But transgender =/= transsexual as you assert. It just doesn't. They mean different things.
You can attack the distinction on the basis that it refers to a real-world distinction that doesn't, in fact, exist. But if successful, you've just shown that people have made a mistake, not that the words have the same meaning.
Sexual orientation isn't the point. The point is that a female body builder is not a man or a "male" and a man that doesn't lift heavy shit isn't any "closer" to a woman or a female. So why should it be accepted that a male in a dress is a "woman"?
You claim "man" and "women" have no cultural significance yet 90% of the population would punch you through a wall and call offense if you say a "masculine" woman is a "man" - or call a gay male that engages in anal sex a "female" or a "woman". It's only about %2 of people claiming something else.
By trans people themselves. They actively demonstrate that the two are not separate by claiming to be "transgender" - yet inducing phenotypic (sex hormones) and biological augmentation to themselves. How many 'cis-females' would be comfortable growing a beard, chest hair, and excessive facial hair? This is widespread.
So which is it? If "gender" and "sex" are completely separate, transgenders should not be undergoing 'sex-based' changes unique to opposite sex phenotypes. They could simply just identify and "behave" according to their gender. That is why I said a "transsexual" that has undergone no biological augmentation is a "transgender" until otherwise, transgender being a meaningless term in itself, unless it makes the distinction of biological sex, which is what trans people do. They want to express themselves like a female, not just some 'gender fluid' person.
If not, they actively show that transgenderism aren't the same - but pose no meaningful differences from each other. The trans that undergo no biological augmentation, but still identify as "transgenders" makes no distinction between a cis-woman in a pant suit calling it "non-conformist".
I've always been (except for period of experimentation in early 70s along with David Bowie) a hetero woman-- a tomboyish one. Many students, over the years, made the Freudian slip of saying "yes sir" to me (I've been in the South and Southwest where "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" are used with elders) instead of yes ma'am. So I've always been aware that some students were unconsciously registering something in me that they perceived as either masculine or non-feminine.
I've had friends say I'm queer because I'm unmarried and childless. When one never strictly thought within the hetero-normative pressures to "act" this way or that or to have "gender-targeted" goals; when one has always perceived so incredibly much diversity along the spectrum of gender (behavior/identity); when one was drawn to the marginalized individualists who never could deny who they were...
This stuff is not ridiculous. It's very far from ridiculous, but it's sure gonna make some folks uncomfortable
Also as to sports categories, my opinion is that those things should be based entirely on measurable abilities and characteristics, like weight categories in boxing, and genitals or pronouns or anything like that shouldn't factor into it at all.
I'm fairly far to the left. My lefty peers don't approve of my views. Much of this topic (gender vs sex) seems to have gone down the rabibit hole where,
I could have been less lazy and made my points more clear, but you are trying to disambiguate the whole of something by splitting it up into multiple parts that does no one any favors; you instead "split up" the essential parts to explain away the whole of something, then want us to accept whatever you are trying to purport as a sufficient, less ambiguous explanation of it. You have just caused confusion.
"Psychological" "sociological" "gender" and "physical gender" aren't even separate things... they are all parts contributing to what 'makes gender, gender' .. just because these parts are distinct individuals does not mean they should be split up into these distinct parts (especially for clarity's sake). They are what makes the pie, a pie.
This is why a large widespread portion of the population views them as a whole; because they cannot just be conveniently divorced from one another just because some definition says so.
"Transgenders/Transsexuals" MtF for example, are not attempting to 'express themselves' as women; they are attempting to express themselves as females. They want to identify with females, they want to be around females, they want to be female. This is why they biologically augment themselves, to get closer to female biological sex attributes.
What they actual wear, roles they take on, etc., is not at all relevant, but instead whatever "diverse stereotypes and characteristics/social roles, etc" that are assigned in any specific culture, uses to express opposite sex biological attributes, the trans individual is going to follow them, because this aligns most with the epitome of "femaleness" not womanhood.
But this is inconsistent in a "female bodybuilder," for example, that takes hormones to get stronger - not to increase ones identity and cohension with men/males.
If just comes off as dismissive, "let's just split everything into parts then since we can't all agree..." and ignore the picture. This is the problem with identity politics, etc. now. It is laziness. It is why we went from 2 genders to 66 and growing. Laziness.
Quoting Pfhorrest
No, my whole point isn't that the "psychological thing" is all there is, that is your point. My point is that gender isn't JUST that... and that's why it makes no sense to break them up into these complex categories. They do not stand alone like you suggest, and trans people continue to actively demonstrate that by contradiction.
Quoting Pfhorrest
No, I am not. I am saying it isn't just about "sociological stuff".
I am on the left, too. I am not conservative by any means nor agree with the right-wing especially the dumbass ALT-right gibberish. But I don't know what most very liberal people are even talking about nowadays, especially the young ones wtf is all this even. It all seems unnecessary. Half the stuff has been studied psychology to have no interesting effects on what they call themselves doing. Politics is too sticky for me.
You say:
Quoting Pfhorrest
I would not be easily convinced that there could be a bearing that was decided, as it were, without reference to any social context. Thinking it thorough...
To think of oneself as a female (sex) is to think of oneself as having certain physical characteristics.
To think of oneself as a woman (Gender) is to think of oneself as fulfilling certain social roles.
To think of oneself as a woman (Bearing) would be to have a preference for having a female body.
See my thread A puzzle concerning identity - the incoherence of Gender, in which I tried to sort out some of Rebecca Reilly-Cooper's criticisms. Being of an analytic bent, I found her thinking quite formative.
Let's hope Swan's attempt sidetrack this fine topic does not succeed. This forum is in desperate need of some decent analysis - and of posts that do not hide in quotation marks.
I didn't think @Swan was sidetracking the discussion; you might say the same thing about my posts.
This graph displays the overlap of male and female personality traits.
It sees to me that that personality traits that males and females can display covers the territory claimed by "trans" terms.
@PfhorrestQuoting Bitter Crank
The various socio-psychological traits of masculinity and femininity are already pretty broadly represented in people.
Maybe it was a mistake to mention the social stuff second and at most length, but it's chronologically second in the history of things and the thing people seem to have the most trouble with. Let me try again, shorter and in different order. There's:
1. Your physical sex
2. Your mental feelings about your physical sex
3. Social stuff about role and presentation that is associated with sex
I'm saying that while (3) is the original referent of "gender", for trans purposes it's often not the important thing; rather, (2) is the important thing.
So a cis man is:
1. Born physically male
2. Prefers to stay physically male.
3. Might have any social identity, role, or presentation. (Probably "masculine" ones, but not necessarily.)
While a trans woman is:
1. Born physically male
2. Prefers to be physically female
3. Might have any social identity, role, or presentation. (Probably "feminine" ones, but not necessarily.)
The reason I haphazardly use labels like "genderqueer"/"genderfluid"/"pangender" for myself in casual contexts is because I'm:
1. Born physically male
2. Kinda prefer to be more physically female, but not entirely or very urgently (less body hair, different body fat, vag would be nice, but penis is okay, tall and strong is nice).
3. Don't care about pronouns (call me whatever), wear clothes / do activities / etc without regard for whether they're "men's" or "women's".
Crank seems to be focusing on things like my (3) not making you a "different gender", and if you mean gender in the sense that we use terms like "transgender" and "cisgender" then I agree. The social stuff is not what makes the things that we call "gender" in those contexts; the psychological, mental feelings about your physical body does.
But the social stuff is the original referent of the word "gender", and in academic sociological contexts, as well as in some feminist context (and the plentiful overlap between those two), that's the way that they use that word. I think it's harmful to the trans community to have the sense of "gender" they're predominantly concerned with, the way people feel about their bodies, conflated with that social stuff. I think that's the origin of TERF complains that transwomen "treat womanhood as a costume", because the TERFs think the transwomen are using "gender" in the social sense, when they more often mean it the psychological sense.
There are of course strong connections between all three, as I said in my OP. People will usually prefer to remain the sex they were born, and prefer the social stuff associated with the sex that they prefer to be. But these things can come apart, and don't always align.
it sounds to me like you understand me correctly. Will have to respond to you in more detail another time.
(Technical question: how do you @ people here in a way that links like that?)
And that is precisely the problem. You are just describing dysphoria here. Not some kind existing thing that is consistent and widespread across all people. There are no deep introspective interpersonal debates on whether or not I prefer to stay a female over a male and keep my vagina. There is no desire to prefer a vagina over a penis or vice versa - I am not female "just because I don't want to be a male.." that is what separates people having gender confusion from the rest. A natural born female would just wonder what the hell you are talking about. The thought doesn't even cross most people's minds.
If you have to flip/flop and go into some deep analysis about whether or not you "prefer to stay your physical sex," that is called dysphoria. Most people do not have this problem. This is just projection.
No, natural born physical males and females do not "prefer to stay" physically male, the desire for preferences for gender preferences to change opposite sex is absent. They are physical male and physical female; they do not sort through a series of introspection (like dypshoric individuals do). They do not need to because they do not suffer from confusion, distress, or discomfort as they are.
Not one cis-gender female is approaching their natural born genders (i.e. physical sex) with "confusion", analysis, reason and debate.
This is like me contemplating whether or not I am a monkey, a horse, or a human just because trans-species do. There are no "preferences" to remain a human over a monkey for almost all people. That is not how it works. Some people may do this, but the majority do not.
This does not make you more physically female. It makes you a hairless male. What are you talking about, honestly.
You are experiencing gender dysphoria. That is literally what psychologists are talking about. Because regular folk do not know what you are talking about.
I highly doubt any 'cis-male', even the ones with gynecomastia are having maladaptive daydreams about having a vagina outside of a sexual context: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22005209
Or making some joke.
That would imply hunter-gatherer societies have no social constructs, even though they're already a "society". I don't think that works.
@name so @pfhorrest
oops, that wasn't helpful. @ " name " so @ " pfhorrest " EXCEPT no spaces.
Yes, the thing I labelled (2) above is about gender dysphoria or euphoria. I literally said in my OP that that's why I propose the name "bearing" for that property: because the root "-phor" means "to bear". (My username has nothing to do with that, BTW; the "Pfhor" are an alien race from a video game from my childhood, nothing to do with gender at all).
And no duh that most cis people don't have any particularly strong feelings about that thing, in the same way that white people usually don't have particularly strong feelings about their race. It's just not something that they're confronted with, not something that they have to think about; it's the invisible default. But you, being a ciswoman I take it, would probably not like the idea of being made male, I would guess? You may not normally think at all about preferring to remain female, because the question is never at issue, but if it were you would prefer to stay female, no? You wouldn't be completely indifferent if you somehow woke up a different sex one day; that's just something you don't ever need to worry about, so you don't think about it. Right?
Also, please don't say anything more about my situation in particular, because seriously go fuck yourself with that attitude. I'm trying to be sensitive to everybody here and only exposed myself like that because I thought this was a progressive community that might take bringing up this topic as a kind of transphobia, so I wanted to share that I have some personal stake in this too and am not just some cishet douchebag telling trans people they don't exist or something. But if you're going to be an asshole about it then just drop it completely. This isn't about me.
@BitterCrank thanks, that wasn't showing up right when I tried previewing so I thought that mustn't be it. ETA: Still not working it seems. @Bitter Crank Test? Okay now it works. Thanks again.
It's at least somewhat about you because you are the only one who can provide testimony about how you feel and think about your self. How else does anyone have first hand information about being human, except by being a "me"?
Quoting Pfhorrest
I don't know how progressive "it" is. TPF is a collection of posters, some of whom have been kicking around here for quite a few years, and who feel a certain amount of loyalty to the operation. The turnover is fairly high. Some of us are progressive, some of us are conservative. Our doors are wide open so we get a fair number of walking wounded.
I'm a retired gay male, 73. (might be one of the walking wounded). I well know how homosexuality was classified up to the 1960s, and it wasn't particularly complimentary, even if it wasn't altogether inaccurate. While there are "pitchers and catchers", pitchers are not necessarily dominant and catchers are not necessarily submissive. Too simplistic. Gay men do not want to be women, may or may not like women, and may have various motivations (more than reasons) for wearing women's outré costumes. You never see "a blouse, grey skirt, and sensible black pumps" drag. The view then was that homosexuality was a pathology. In a different context it was a grievous sin (it still is in several religious groups).
I have known a dozen or so trans people over the years. Most of them seem to become happier after they redesigned themselves as whatever they think they ought to have been, than before. So that's all good.
Still, I am not 100% confident that some, most, or all trans people are entirely on the level. Some are, I think, deluded. Now, "DELUSION" by the way, is less a bug than a feature. Most people (98%?) entertain various delusions about themselves, their families, their friends, their work life, their religion, their politics, their amusements, and so forth. The delusions are a necessary part of our operating systems, but it [usually] isn't all or most of it, and they usually isn't running the show.
We delude ourselves out of necessity. As Sigmund Freud noted, "happiness is not in the cards." Life is a bitch, and without strategic delusions cushioning the abrasive hardness of life, it can get to be intolerable.
I have spent what... 6 decades coping with conflicting feelings about my physical self, about how my sexual desire is manifested (given that I grew up thinking I was a pathological deviant and was sinking deep in sin). Plus I was unhappy about my body (not gender) and was something of a social outcast. This all got better once I got the hell out of town after high school and started college, but it still took like 25 more years to resolve all the crap.
Lots of ordinary men and women are conflicted about
not in the same way a trans person may be, but conflicted none-the-less. The issues are different, the expectations are different.
The way we are embodied vs. the expectations of the community in which we are located and the desires and delusions our selves can be difficult to square. Not everyone is so troubled, but enough are to call it a near-universal problem.
This is just a plain bad analogy.
That is not how it works. This is a question for a woman experiencing the symptoms dysphoria and confusion to discern whether or not ones feelings align with reality. This is for a confused woman that must introspect on her sex. There is no "if", that is just something you are making up. There was never an "if". This stuff is just made-up relatively new sheninangans. A small minority of people attempting to disillusion and gaslight everyone else!
It's not a "worry" just because "I haven't experienced it yet," it's not a worry because I do not have the potential for dysphoria it the first place.
This is same reasoning the people putting trigger warnings up all over the place use. They view things in this narrow lens that everyone is suffering from crippling PTSD (or have the potentiality to all suffer from PTSD - even without any existing prerequisites to so) It is purely irrational, and based off nothing at all but emotions gone wild. The cart is before the horse. People do not "prefer to feel like they do not have PTSD," some people do not have PTSD.
Quoting Pfhorrest
You are right. It is not about you, but to make berserk claims that imply that natural born females that do not shave their legs for a week, had their ovaries removed, that are infertile, or suffer from certain medical conditions (PCOS) for example, are CLOSER to males, is complete nonsense. And not a single natural born female with these conditions would agree with this; ditto for you waxing your chest making you closer to a "female".
And no one should play nice about it just because you are sensitive, this is absolute nonsense.
Trans people suffer from gender dysphoria (i.e. a mental disorder). Comparing the two just to appeal to feelings is disingenuous and simply fallacious. This is like comparing someone that has delusional sense of self (e.g. "I am the smartest in the class today), with someone that suffers from delusional personality disorder. It's just nonsense, all around.
@Bitter Crank, the site guidelines said you all don’t tolerate racists, homophobes, sexists, etc, which sounds broadly socially progressive to me, hence my impression.
Curious if that includes transphobes? Cause I’m usually the last to call for any kind of censorship but if Swan was unwelcome here I sure wouldn’t miss him.
By this logic, you just said people with mental disorders must suffer from craziness! Not only that, but call me a "sensitive little girl," and continue to call me a "He/Him," ...! The true craziness knows no bounds, and it definitely has nothing to do with being "trans".
This thread is just ridiculous at this point. I'm done.
For it makes it seem like as though bearing - feeling - arises [I]ex nihilo[/I], in a vacuum, or at least in the mode of a kind of natural spontaneity uninfluenced or uninflected by environment. But to want to feel like a woman (say), is at least in part to want to be treated like a woman, or aspire to ‘womanly’ things (dress, affection, sensibility), to be able partake in the gendering process which exists only at the level of the social and not at all wholly at the level of the psychological.
To decouple psychology from lived reality seems to me to make psychology poorer and not richer: feelings are as much ‘lived’ - acknowledged, celebrated, denied, hurt - as they are ‘merely’ felt. There are those who do not have - if I can use this loaded word - the privilege of being able to so easily say that they don’t care what others call them (sociology): their bearing may well depend entirely if not in large measure, on exactly that (passing, etc). So while I really like the introduction of the distinction, I’m not convinced it can do the work you’d like it to.
Before I go into about the potential problems I see looming, a bit about me : White, cisgender, heterosexual male. Not classically (american) masculine - very much the opposite, really- but still, identifying as male.. I check all the boxes of a person who might not have a right to speak on this.
That said, I struggled greatly with body dysmorphia from late-elementary school til my mid-twenties. Very skinny, but thought I was fat. Was convinced that something was wrong and my face and body didn't have distinct outlines like other people. Obsessively worked out, and skin-pinched, and compared. Would leave parties when my sense of my physical sense of self started to melt like warm jello, dragging my psychological sense of self in tow. Never felt 'at home' in social roles, always felt like I was playing a role that didn't fit. (still essentially the same, but its cooled down a little, enough to punch in, punch out, and survive)
I don't offer that as a token of equivalence, or group membership. I just mean : This is the psychological point from which I understand this stuff, rightly or wrongly.
Ok, so, the potentially problematic stuff :
Sex speaks for itself, I agree with you there. Then: 'Sociological gender' originally comes from behaviors/attitudes/self-presentations that developed from the way cultures handled differentiation of sex. 'psychological gender' is a further turn of the screw, which deals with representations of sociological gender and our bearing toward them. (It's more complicated, of course, because it's not just representation, but the hypercomplex interplay of representation and lived gender roles.)
Call this the postmodern gender status quo. Sex, gender, gender representation. This is what we grew up with (I'm assuming you're a millennial like me.)
The novel thing with our generation is making explicit 'bearing,' as you perfectly put it.
The question is : should 'bearing' automatically entail recognition of the person as the thing they bear toward?
I say : No.
Let me qualify: If you have a bearing toward this or that and it works, then it works. I'm not saying we should enforce normative gender roles.
But. The reasoning is like this : The attractive, libidinal power - the thing that draws people, makes them bear toward this or that role - is the sedimented structure of last-generation gender roles. and their representations. Those didn't come out of nowhere. History struggled and shook its way to this distribution of 'roles.' They came about, rightly or wrongly, from a life-and-death struggle (so for instance the fetishization of '50s housewife as 'feminine' par excellence comes from WW2 and how america handles the aftermath.)
Gender roles are grounded in the 'real'. The struggle is what lends power to those roles. Divest those roles of the historical thing they're grounded in and everything gets less and less attractive. Representations of representations of representations.
'Bearing' is in large part a bearing-toward those things that you feel best express you, those roles which would let you live your 'authentic' life. But those roles are birthed from struggle. You can't change your bearing - I believe that - but you also don't have an automatic right to be recognized as the thing you bear toward. Once identification becomes equivalent to recognition, the very thing that makes those things worth bearing-toward collapses. An insatiable hunger ensues. 'If I only I was recognized as what I feel myself to be I would be happy'. That's a mirage. If everyone is recognized as what they feel, the worth of that recognition disappears. Being recognized automatically as what you identify as makes the worth of recognition evaporate. The pull of those roles were based in early moments, living as a presexual being being molded in a real world. If there is no firm world, there is no pull.
And when that happens, and everyone gets to be who they want to be - the bad feelings sprout out somewhere else.
My big post will have to wait till the weekend when I can devote some hours to laying out all the social constructions of sex and gender, but I can squash the gender dysphoria myth quickly.
Not all people who fall under a trans umbrella have gender dysporia. Most might have a gender identification, that's to say they have a particular identity and what to be recognised by it, but this is not equivalent to dysphoria. Some bigender, genderfluid, genderqueer, etc., people are fine being identified as a gender people might assume. Just because one is a women, it doesn't mean one is not a man and vice versa.
Even if one is to reject being a man or women, it doesn't necessary mean dysphoria. Sometimes people aren't seriously bothered by their bodies or even others misidentfying them. The latter can just be an annoyance, rather than a deep disgust with oneself.
Finally, even those who do experience dysphoria, it ebbs and flows. It's a particular psychological state, not one's identity. The existence of a trans person is not equivalent to dysphoria, even amongst those who experience it.
But the comparison to money, which was a social construct that came with civilization, doesn't work either. The context is generally patriarchal societies defining roles women are supposed to occupy, subjugating them to the patriarchy. But if gender roles have always existed in human society, then that can't be entirely true.
Maybe it's just the philosophy podcast I listened to recently on feminism in which the guest speaker was talking about the feminist ideal of a genderless society, which to me seems to run counter to all of human history.
[quote=Banno]To think of oneself as a female (sex) is to think of oneself as having certain physical characteristics.[/quote]
"Female" isn't a matter of what one "thinks of oneself as". Either one has the junk or one doesn't. To wit:
One can "think of oneself as" a woman (Gender) - with or without (BDD?) the junk.
One can "think of oneself as" a woman (Bearing) - with or without (BDD?) the junk.
With the female junk, doesn't one's gender and/or bearing as a woman correspond to being 'a woman in fact'?
Without the female junk, however, doesn't one's gender and/or bearing as a woman (BDD?) not correspond to being 'a woman in fact' - excuse the smell of no true scotsman b.s. - but only 'a woman in style'?
My observation: Junk is a fact of the matter - a facticity of being meiotic eukaryotes (e.g. mammals (e.g. primates (e.g. homo [in]sapiens ...))); Gender & Bearing are, subsequently (though not consequently?), psycho-social constructs. How isn't this distinction fundamental - if not categorical - insofar as the latter presuppose the former ... like e.g. agency (predicate) presupposes the agent (noun)?
My point: Modding - augmenting - junk in order to align sex with gender and/or bearing expectations is, to the extent I've discerned, a technique (re: body morphing ... 'transitioning') for social inclusion; just as LBGTQI-phobic policies & shaming practices are techniques of social exclusion. In what possible world doesn't 'the efficacy' of the latter presuppose junk's (including Trans junk's) non-subjective materiality?
It can be: humanity might just have done patriarchal social construction throught its history. Just as money is a social construct which comes with societies with money, patriarchy is a social construct which comes with patriarchal societies.
No, it's not. It's just an uncomfortable analogy, so you ignore it.
It's good to know that some worthwhile thinking continues, albeit mired in the religious slop that makes up most of these fora.
It's one thing to say gender is like money, it's another thing to say it evolved with homo sapiens.
No, that's just terrible evo psych postion committing a naturalistic fallacy.
And yes, we definitely have to fight against it, since it is our myth holding in place patriarchy. We're just fighting a human culture though, not our bodily existence at any time and place.
You mean all of human culture? I don't think abolishing gender roles is realistic. But they can be made more equal and diverse.
You claim some Transgenders are this, yet haven't posed a meaningful distinction between "gender fluid, gender queer, and "bi gender," and Transgenderism while claiming that 'gender' and 'sex' can be divorced from each other, you also did not do so without referring to biological phenotypic sex-based attributes, the terms are ALL useless because they pose no meaningful difference from another if you recognize gender as independent of biological phenotypic sex attributes unique to the two sexes. This is literally all made up. It is based off nothing at all. The terms just all contradict each other or render themselves meaningless. If you can't pose a meaningful distinction between transgender and 'gender fluid', then why do transgenders answer their problem (and why should) we with biological augmentation (feminization of the face/genital removal, etc), instead of just remaining pre-OP 'gender fluids', why is it necessary they take the next step into transsexualism.
What OP is arguing is completely incoherent because he divorces gender from reality by splitting gender up unnecessary into a series of "parts" he claims to be all different, yet 'psych' and 'socio' gender isn't any less "physical" than "real gender". He has sailed the boat into the unknown.
The problem for me is you pose some kind of solipsismic thing by saying that "gender" is determined by what thinks while no existing references (without first recognizing sex-based phenotypical characteristics in the first place to "reject" or "accept"), yet the existence of "transgenderism" and the claims trans people make do not correspond with what you claim.
And iffff trans people do not directly confirm or say this, their actions demonstrate all there is to it by hormone treatment and biological augmentation to mimic female traits not 'woman' traits. Their actions say "transgenderism" is not determined by what they think, but by co-existing in an environment with other females to form ones identity around cohesively, it is determined by referencing the 'gender' expression of other females... not "I think I am a woman, therefore I am" .. or by what "society says" ... and if even if it did, why should this be addressed with biological augmentation?
This is why an ACTUAL "gender neutral" society (which is not possible as the social species we are) would cause discomfort in the transgender, because they will lack corresponding bodies to compare themselves to. So, no you cannot have a "gender neutral" society.
So either transsexualism is just a more technical term for transgender, or transgenders are just 'gender fluid people' aka males in skirts. And then we run into this problem as I said before:
P1: "Transition" denotespassing of all necessary attributes from one to another.
P2: All necessary biological attributes are 'fixed' at birth.
P3: Biological attributes cannot be 'changed' without artificial intervention/frequent injections (i.e. lacks necessary attributes) or augmentation (mimicking), therefore static biological sex cannot 'change' if necessary attributes cannot transition.
P4: "Transsexualism" (and 'trans' - genderism) is therefore incoherent. QED.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Now explain how someone can "reject" being a man or a woman, while Transgenderism being the contradiction it is demonstrates that this is just incoherent.
If we are going to accept that Transgenderism is a thing, then we cannot also accept coherently that someone can reject their gender entirely.
!
The height and depth of human (and inhuman) experience dismissed. Cool! Feelings are sufficient for marriage, murder, the whole range of human activity. Feelings are not made up. Gender dysphoria is not a confusion, not a muddling up of concepts. It's a feeling, which is real. Not that I have experienced it, but I can perhaps imagine what it might be like.
Quoting Swan
The grammar here (for example) renders your point obscure. I am in general having difficulty understanding your posts.
Yeah, no. No one is here is saying gender dysphoria isn't a feeling, doesn't exist, or whatever. I didn't say feeling was made up or insignificant, I said all those terms listed were pulled out of someone's ass because they felt a fart coming on. They then strangely decided to give the "fart" a name, but that doesn't erase the fact that all farts smell exactly the same, like shit.
And yes, jumping around making berserk claims about the anatomy of a colon based on nothing but farts is a real problem.
Quoting bert1
Yeah, yeah. Criticizing someone's grammar and "bad English" yet bad English is the world's most popular and UNIVERSALLY spoken and written language by anyone who isn't a grammar Nazi. I am far more annoyed by people that complain about "bad grammar" than those that complain about proper grammar. :lol:
You are being lazy.
No, your posts really are difficult to understand. For example, I can't make any any sense of this: "The problem for me is you pose some kind of solipsismic thing by saying that "gender" is determined by what thinks while no existing references ...". And your first post in this discussion, as someone has already pointed out, was mostly gibberish.
You're the one who is being lazy. Write better or your posts will be deleted.
I always think it is interesting for someone who is transgender (or whatever else you want to call it) to have unique and particular opinions about gender. You also throw in words like cisgender, heteronormative, trans-exclusive and so on and your experience. It sets up a framework for which the reader will understand where you're coming from, which is that rather than listening to your opinion, we're hearing about dogma you've learned and feel enlightened by. I feel like you're here to enlighten people on an issue which is particularly personal to you, this is a bad set-up because it's a scientific issue.
The primary problem I have with your piece, besides its dogmatic undertones is that you've set up genders as social constructs or as a choice. This is mostly a scientific issue, especially among educated circles, A scientific claim needs strong evidence. This ties into a nature vs nurture debate on gender, My view is that the science points to nature quite strongly, I usually only hear "pragmatic" reasons for why if gender WAS socially constructed, we could change things to create a "utopia" where women and men are equal.
Even the idea of gender being a spectrum, is part of this notion that people are tied down by the oppressive narrative of gender. So a spectrum represents freedom from that oppression. It's the same with every speaker on this, there's no evidence, just ramblings on fairness, equality, freedom and so on but since it's simply not true, when I see evidence that discredits these ideas debunked or evidence that shows these ideas to be more than just hopeful, then I can rethink my position. There's room for reinterpreting gender performance but not actual gender as it's currently defined.
I am mid-40s, married cisfemale, raised Catholic and extremely sheltered, so it’s been a bit of a journey for me to reach my current perspective on gender and sexuality - which I thought was relatively comprehensive in acknowledging diversity. I now see that I may still have some learning to do.
I had fairly recently laid out my perspective on this: I saw gender and sexuality as a three-dimensional structure along three axes:
1. Genitalia and general physicality (ie. born physically male-both-female on a spectrum)
2. Gender identity (ie. socially determined gender roles)
3. Sexual preference (develops post-puberty)
To be honest, I thought that trans people had been ‘influenced’ by socially determined gender roles (particularly in relation to clothing choice) to match their physicality to the gender with which they identify socially. I thought that if children’s clothing were all gender-neutral and children were not identified by gender or referred to by gender-specific pronouns (big ask, I know) then perhaps people wouldn’t need to surgically alter their body in order to feel ‘comfortable’ with their body. They’d be free to identify socially with gender regardless of their physicality.
But I do recognise a distinction between interacting ‘as a woman’ with those around me (social gender), and being able to ‘feel feminine’ for no-one else except myself (bearing). So at the very least, what you’ve shared has led me to rethink my perspective.
I enjoyed this, I like the phenomenological angle you're taking with 'bearing'.
To my understanding, what you're trying to highlight is the necessary role that one's embodiment plays in being trans, specifically a sense of conflict (or being ill-at-ease) with the (sex/gender) characteristics of one's body, and the necessary motion/change that must be done to resolve this conflict.
Quoting Pfhorrest
When explaining your list, you emphasised 2 as the thing you want to draw attention to. And 'bearing' is the concept you're using to spark discussion about it. It seems to me that part of being trans, as you put it, is a conflict internal to embodiment. Thinking about embodiment means trying to think about cognition and other mental processes as expressed in body movements and other processes. For example, people gesture when they talk to convey ideas, point when emphasis is needed; more examples might be that somatization happens and that psychomotor symptoms occur with depression. SEP characterises embodiment's theoretical thrust as:
To my mind, your idea of 'bearing' seeks to draw emphasis to sensations of disaccord and accord with one's embodiment with regard to gender characteristics. Whether one finds one's groove in the comportments expected of their body is felt by their body. When one's bearing is different from one's 'orientation', as you've put it.
- Physical sex strongly disposes psychological bearing (most people want to be the sex that they are)
- Psychological bearing strongly disposes sociological gender identity (most people want to be categorized along with people of the sex they want to be)
That second point seems to be the point you're making, so I think we agree.
I'm having a little trouble understanding you, but it sounds to me like you're thinking of psychological bearing as being a feeling about sociological gender, when I explicitly mean it not to be; that's what "gender identity" already accurately describes. The reason I'm coining "bearing" is so that we can talk about the psychological feelings about physical sex apart from anything sociological (though they are still strongly coupled most often, see above). For example (to avoid talking about myself again), a tomboy transwoman (some of whom I've met), a person born male who aims to be a masculine woman. They just want the physical body of a female; they're fine with the male social stuff they're already living.
Aside from that, it sounds like you're maybe saying that wanting to be something doesn't make you that thing, and I have great sympathies toward that position and have argued for it in this context before. I think a lot of it comes down to whether "man" and "woman" really mean sexes or genders. I expect that most English speakers intend to refer to sexes by them, which is why people react to finding out a woman is a transwoman by saying she's "really a man". So from a descriptivist linguistics point of view, it seems like "man" does mean "male", and yes, wanting to be male doesn't make you male.
But if we accept the prevailing sociological status quo that "man" and "woman" refer to genders rather than sexes, then it's back to the "geek"/"nerd" analogy I made earlier: there isn't any reality to social constructs besides the acceptance of them, so in nominally disagreeing with someone's self-identification, you're not even putatively disputing a fact, you're just expressing non-acceptance of their self-image. So whether or not to recognize people as the things they identify as becomes a matter of politeness and kindness more than any kind of matter of fact.
Quoting 180 Proof
Bearing as I've coined it is explicitly not a social construct. It's a psychological property, akin to orientation, that has no dependency on anything in society; it's just how you feel about your physical sex.
Thank you. :)
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am actively going against "dogma" here and proposing that the current mainstream use of the concept of gender is a mixed up mess that needs to be teased apart and clarified. That you think words like "cisgender" are reflective of some kind of dogma just shows how uneducated you are on the topic. It's just a word. We need words to discuss these things.
Anyway, I'm not arguing that gender is a social construct. I'm pointing out the historical fact that the concept of gender was originally distinguished from sex explicitly as a social construct, for academic sociological purposes; specifically, to talk about how intersex children, who were not strictly male or female, were still socially categorized as "boys" and "girls" because our society categorized people into these two categories regardless of the physical biological facts; and later, to talk about how other societies have different such categorization systems that included third genders. Those are just the historical facts about the original use of the word "gender" as something distinct from "sex".
What I'm arguing is that that concept has been appropriated to talk about something else entirely, about things to do with trans people and such, and that we would do well to distinguish the concepts relevant to trans people (the thing I've called "bearing") from that older, sociological sense of the word "gender".
Glad I gave you some food for thought. Your three-dimensional analysis sounds pretty accurate to me for its part; I'm basically just proposing the addition of a fourth axis to it.
I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thank you for drawing attention to the connections between this and the topics of phenomenology and embodiment. I don't have any disagreement with anything you've said.
And maybe let's all just ignore Swan from now on.
I'm glad that it seems I understood. Given that bearing is psychological, and not reducible to feeling at home in the social role of a gender, what are the features of bearing that distinguish it from feeling at home in a social role? What additional information does bearing provide over and above dis/identification with a sociological idea of gender?
Quoting Pfhorrest
You've established political undertones from the very start of your post. Your use of terminology is not only unnecessary, but it's also argumentative and condescending, your claim is not even sourced. This set me against you from the start. However, I did not do you justice in my characterisation of your opinion. As you say, others have derailed you quite a bit and I lazily jumped to conclusions without giving your post a proper read but after rereading your post, it is as you say, I apologise. I think your argument has merit and the term "bearing" would go some way to helping people to talk about gender and people with gender dysphoria.
That clears it up to me. It's about how it feels to be in a body, and the desire to be in a body shaped like another's. What utility does the concept have? Are you trying to highlight body feelings in a discourse where performativity and social construction reigns?
Pretty much, yes. I've just come across situations where those don't line up, and think it's useful to be able to distinguish between them in those circumstances, just as it's useful to be able to talk about how either of them don't like up with sex, for the circumstances where that's the case.
Also, as I mentioned when discussing TERFs in the OP, I think a lot of the argument between them and transwomen can be boiled down to conflation of sociological gender and psychological bearing. It's possible to be gender-abolitionist like TERFs are but also accepting of the reality of trans people's inner mental states, but it's really hard to say you're against one and accepting of the other if we use the same word for both.
I no longer use the term "gender" in any other context than grammar. How many genders are there now? I've lost count. But it seems that the use of this word has only confused the debate around identity.
Bearing seems distingishing identity isn't about conforming to a standard or not, but a feature of one existing being. The trans women isn't a women because they have to meet a social standard of belonging to womanhood, but rather because they are a woman who happens to have dysphoria about their body.
To make the distinction clear, we might consider the person who has dysphoria about their body-- feels belonging with a body of breasts, a vagina, etc. -- but doesn't have any problem with an identity of male. (i.e. they are a MALE who feels/ought have a different body, rather than having an identity of woman. )
I wouldn't take bearing to be talking about the opposition to social construction. Social construction, in the modern usage, isn't a specific kind of cause (All social constructions involving a body have a biological cause involved! ), but a reference to a fact of existence which is a social practice. In this respect, all our identities and categories are social constructions because they are a contingent practice of our social existence.
[quote=TheWillowOfDarkness]I wouldn't take bearing to be talking about the opposition to social construction. Social construction, in the modern usage, isn't a specific kind of cause (All social constructions involving a body have a biological cause involved! ), but a reference to a fact of existence which is a social practice. In this respect, all our identities and categories are social constructions because they are a contingent practice of our social existence.[/quote]
:100:
[quote=pfhorrest]And maybe let's all just ignore Swan from now on.[/quote]
Lil' bitchy, huh? Sounds like ... must've shrunk a nerve. :yikes:
You might like to think of it as one of the factors underlying gender the social construct, one step less removed than sex itself, since as I've said a few times already, it looks like bearing is sort of the glue between sex and gender identity: sex strongly influences bearing but the two can come apart, and bearing strongly influences gender identity but the two can come apart; so usually someone's gender identity will follow their bearing which will follow their sex, but someone might identify differently than they bear, and might bear elsewhere than their birth sex.
And since gender itself can be broken down into more than just gender identity, but also gender presentation and role, we could further break down the chain within just "gender". And of course we could further break down sex as well. In the end we might have a picture something like:
Chromosomal sex strongly influences but does not completely determine
Gonadal sex which strongly influences but does not completely determine
Sex hormones which strongly influence but do not completely determine
External sexual characteristics which strongly influence but do not completely determine
Bearing which strongly influences but does not completely determine
Gender identity which strongly influences but does not completely determine
Gender presentation which strongly influences but does not completely determine
Gender role.
In other words, e.g. society will most probably treat as women people who present as women, who will probably be people who identify as women, who will probably be people who want to have female bodies, who will probably be people who were born with female bodies, who will probably be people with a low androgen ratio, who will probably be people without testes, who will probably people without Y chromosomes. But that's a lot of "probably"s, and there are exceptions every step of the way.
Sounds like you can't even use an idiom correctly.
Thank you for making it so clear who can be safely ignored around these parts.
This is intricately tied in with "being able to pass". The less you look like the gender you feel like, the more often you will have to justify your feelings. Even well meaning people might treat you like a rare specimen. So you might have an operation, or you might only go for hormone treatment, but you can do little about bone structure. Now, that might not be a thing that bothers you, but the incongruity between how your looks are intuitively parsed and how you feel inside leads to an increased need to justify yourself, especially when there's thing you could do but don't want to (I've heard about peer pressure to take voice lessons, for example). That is, during the transition phase there might be a conflict between being at peace with yourself, and being at peace with the community you live in (and that can include the trans community, who are trying to help).
So, the regular pressures to behave according to your genders can be exacerabated when you're trans, because - other than cis-gendered people - there's a need to legitimise your gender. So a transwoman may need to show an effort to be more "feminine" to prove that she's not faking it. You can't prove feelings easily, so all that's left is behaviour.
If we were to accept that (a) trans people exist, and that (b) it's not all and not primarily about outward behaviour, we would adapt our expectation and lessen the burden of proof on daily life.
And now switch perspectives. You're a woman, you're not that interested in conventionally feminine things, but you live in an environment where people keep expecting this. The constant need to explain yourself would be tedious, too. Then you see a transwoman take voice lessons. Maybe she doesn't quite pull it off, yet? This behaviour has as a side-effect the re-inforcement of the annoying gender expectation you have to correct again and again and again.
So at that point, if we would accept that it's primarily about internal body-image (to be at peace with yourself), and we'd just get used to a trans status, then some of the behaviour might fall by the wayside, and behaviour would be more... instinctive?
A trans woman isn't a cis woman, and they know that or there'd be no point to use the word. But that's sort of the big default concept. If we were to accept that a trans woman is not a cis woman, it wouldn't be a surprise for a transwoman to retain some pre-transition elements, if we just took the category for what it is. Otherwise there's a constant need to prove yourself, and the only real option in daily life re-inforces gendered stereotypes. And in turn people think that's what it's about. There's a social push and pull here, that maybe could be lessened by simply accepting the category with all its variations.
(I'm talking mostly about trans women here because they're far more visible online than trans men.)
:death: :flower:
Current discourse differentiates between "sex" and "gender". But "gender" has several different meanings in different contexts, causing some confusion and conflict. I propose also disambiguating the sociological and psychological properties that are each sometimes called "gender", leaving "gender" meaning the sociological property, and calling the psychological property now distinguished from it "bearing" instead; keeping the physical property "sex" still a distinct thing from either of them.
It is quite unambiguously a blue bin as to colour, and colour denotes function in the recycling world. Now some folks would claim that a blue bin remains a blue bin whatever is written on it, and whatever contents are put in it and even if it goes to the trouble of painting itself green, it remains a tragically vandalised blue bin.
Others would say that a blue bin can be repurposed as a green bin either by its own declaration or by donning the garb and content of a green bin.
Others find the whole thing confusing and unsettling.
If anyone is offended at my trivialising of this topic, I apologise, but it seems to me that depersonalising the issues allows one to see that the whole thing is a bureaucratic dispute and remains trivial even if it results in the extremity of extermination camps. The contents of my underpants and the contents of my bins are nobody's business but those that have have to deal with them.
Edit. If you would like to apply, please form an orderly queue.
Edit 2. Such is the bureaucracy of identity: the harsh "reality" of which side of an imaginary line you were born on, what colour your skin is, whether your parents frequented a mosque or a synagogue, and what you have in your underpants and how well it conforms to the hair on your face, and the width of your hips determine where you can live and with whom, what job you can do and whether or not you get paid, and every facet of your life and death.
Thank you.
@TheWillowOfDarkness
I think the thrust of the idea is to place the onus on sensations or senses of accord with one's body as it regards gender, like 'how does my immersion in social constructions impact my relationship with my body?'. Whether that relationship is socially mediated or cashed out/expressed in gendered social archetypes/gendered signifiers is ephemeral.
I don't think it being 'cashed out in social archetypes or gendered signifiers' is quite the same thing as reinforcing gendered stereotypes? Structurally maybe quite similar? Guess it depends on how norms and expectation entangle.
[quote=unenlightened]Someone just sent me an amusing photo of a blue wheelie bin, with the traditional sharpie legend added: "I identify as a green bin." Unfortunately I cannot share the picture.
It is quite unambiguously a blue bin as to colour, and colour denotes function in the recycling world. Now some folks would claim that a blue bin remains a blue bin whatever is written on it, and whatever contents are put in it and even if it goes to the trouble of painting itself green, it remains a tragically vandalised blue bin.
Others would say that a blue bin can be repurposed as a green bin either by its own declaration or by donning the garb and content of a green bin.
Others find the whole thing confusing and unsettling.
If anyone is offended at my trivialising of this topic, I apologise, but it seems to me that depersonalising the issues allows one to see that the whole thing is a bureaucratic dispute and remains trivial even if it results in the extremity of extermination camps.[/quote]
:naughty:
Just now my morning blues went green with [insert] envy, dude. :vomit: Brilliant!
As the originator of the idea (of bearing): no, not really. It's meant to be about "sensations or senses of accord with one's body as it regards" sex, the physical stuff, not gender the social stuff. If you're stranded alone on a deserted island with no clothes and no other people and no job but to eat from the plentiful tropical fruits as desired, how do you feel when you look down your body and see your chest and crotch and so on? Nothing in particular because it's fine and normal? Revulsion and discomfort because it's wrong wrong wrong? "Okay I guess" but you'd rather some things be different? That's the thing I'm calling "bearing", and it is definitionally independent of social factors. (But, as elaborated before, social factors may be partially dependent on it).
"Identifying" is a social matter, already covered by the usual term "gender identity". I'm not proposing anything new with regards to that, but rather distinguishing something else as different from that. I guess to use your bins analogy, the closest thing to it would be the contents of the bin, which are different from its color or the label on it; but there's a bit of a problem with that analogy because the contents of a bin depend on how people use the bin, which makes this still an analogy for social things.
Unpacking the analogy: if green bins are for composting and blue bins are for recycling, but there's some green bin that people put bottles and cans in for some reason, then it makes sense to call that a recycle bin, not a compost bin, because that's what it's used for, even though it's green like a compost bin. That's "gender" the social construct: a recycle bin is a bin used for recycling, regardless of color; a woman is someone treated as a woman, regardless of sex. Putting a label on a bin / identifying as a gender is a signal to treat the bin / person in that way.
But bins don't have feelings. A blue bin can't want to be green. But a male person can want to be female. So the analogy breaks when you try to use it to talk about the actual topic of this thread, this new concept "bearing" I'm coining: the analogous thing would be "what color the bin wants to be", not what label it has, not what's inside of it, not what color it is. But bins don't want things, so there is no analogue there.
Damn, I knew there was a flaw in the analogy. :razz: But what I am suggesting is that you don't need to find ever more criteria by which to classify yourself. You are just pandering to the bureaucrats and their box ticking mentality. I am the epitome of my own self, complete with whatever exact combination of behaviours, desires, clothes, physique, ambivalent feelings about myself or someone else I might happen to have from time to time. And other peoples' labels can fuck off. There is a special gender for for folk with this attitude - 'Ornery bugger'.
Please don't assume the square plastic blue containers' type. We don't know if it's a bin or not. It could be a large tupperwear container or a water bottle. Depends on it's feelings.
If one is NOT buying into those stereotypes, then being a female or male biologically would have ZERO connotations about who you're attracted to, what you want to look like, what you want your body to be like, how you behave. If you're a biological male, then the answers to all of those questions for you would be something that a biological male is like. Likewise if you're a biological female.
The only reason there would be any need to create a separate concept of gender would be that one is going to kowtow to stereotypes, so that if you're a biological female, but you feel certain ways about your body, etc., you're "no longer a biological female in terms of gender." But that seems nonsensical to me.
This, for example: If you're a biological male, then any conceivable way your body is shaped, or any possible way that you shape it via modifications, is a way that biological males can be. If you're a biological male, then you can't be some way that's not a biological male. However you are is a way that biological males can be. Otherwise one is just kowtowing to some bs stereotypes.
Bs stereotypes are irresistible. If the SS says you are a Jew, you're a Jew.
[i]"Jock-a-mo fee-no ai na-né,
jock-a-mo fee na-né"[/i]
:clap: :party:
[quote=Terrapin Station]If you're a biological male, then any conceivable way your body is shaped, or any possible way that you shape it via modifications, is a way that biological males can be. If you're a biological male, then you can't be some way that's not a biological male.[/quote]
No. Matter. How. you Feel. grrl ...
Everyone seems to want to use this thread as an excuse to rehash the same tired old opinions about social gender, when the entire point of it is to create a way that we don’t have to talk about that stuff.
Meanwhile the title of the thread is "Disambiguating the concept of gender"??
The problem is "blue bin" and "green bin" both have the same necessary attributes to be the "same bins, in different clothing".
That is not true for humans. That gist of my very first post here. A male human lacks the necessary biological attributes to be female (as I said in my first post), a 'male' cannot be considered a 'female' without transitioning said attributes, 'augmentation' and changing superficial opposite sex attributes is not a 'transition' of necessary attributes to the other, it is a cosmetic procedure, not different from a 'female' having a double mastectomy from breast cancer.
OP is attempting to divorce the "females/males" from society. He cannot do that. Even in Germany, say, if all the "women genders" wore suits and ties, and in American they all wear "skirts and dresses," the trans individual would follow any 'social construct' present to mimick the female sex embedded in society, not the 'woman'. The female sex is not a stereotype. There is no possible way to divorce humans embedded so deeply into social existence as someone already said the way OP posits. You cannot "split" up the whole into parts at an attempt to be less ambiguous.
Removing the social construct from it contradicts transgenderism. OP does not work. Gender neutral and trans cannot co-exist. One is incoherent or both. I say both.
People can have feelings about the shape of their bodies independent of social factors, and vice versa. I have first and second hand experience of this (recall the transwomen tomboys I mentioned earlier), and it such an obvious thing I cannot believe it generates any controversy. All I'm proposing is that we use different words for the different things so that we can talk about that without confusion.
But you're an obvious bigot who just said both gender neutral societies and trans people are "incoherent", so I don't know why I'm violating my policy of ignoring you to say this.
Quoting unenlightened
Exactly.
Not unless you are under, like, three years old. And still then, it isn't really that no social/environmental factors are contributing but instead you just don't remember much of shit. Socialization begins at birth, sometimes before that at the sound of the parents voice.
Your post is just mumbo-jumbo.
I didn't say that there was no nurture aspect to the causal origin of the having of the feelings about one's body. I said that one can have feelings about one thing, without necessarily having any particular feelings about the other thing. One does not have to want to wear dresses and stay at home doing housework to want to have breasts and a vag and little body hair, or vice versa.
No matter what your feelings, how could you be born a biological male and not feel like a biological male? Any way you feel is a way that a biological male can feel, as a biological male.
I understand everything you're saying. It's you who is lost in the sauce. My post isn't talking about that. You keep focusing on trivialities for some reason. No one is talking about the lazy traditional "stereotypes" ... the type of stereotype, is irrelevant.Quoting Pfhorrest
You are just trying to reduce semantic confusion, not disambiguate the concepts, to which I don't understand your purpose for doing so. The facts remain. This is just hot words scrambled on a sidewalk.
But you don't want anybody talking about either of them so you'll just keep disrupting any attempt to think about it by spewing more bigotry and insults. You're worse than a TERF, you apparently like the old fashioned gender dichotomy; TERFs at least think they're fighting sexism. I don't see how you can possibly think of yourself as left-wing with such conservative social attitudes.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You apparently aren't understanding my comments.
I wrote above "being a female or male biologically would have ZERO connotations about . . . what you want to look like, what you want your body to be like . . . If you're a biological male, then any conceivable way your body is shaped, or any possible way that you shape it via modifications, is a way that biological males can be." Modifications can involve adding larger breasts, removing one's penis, etc. --again, anything conceivable.
Thank you for the clarification. I'm imagining it like:
A body has a relationship with their own body (B), that's the red arrow.
A body has a relationship with its social context, (B<->S).
A body has a relationship with its sociological gender (B<->G)
Sociological gender has a relationship with social context (S<->G).
Bearing is part of the relationship of a body with itself. It's on the same level as sensations, it's a felt disaccord with the body's sex. This sound about right?
I think the confusions and doubt come from questions like:
Is it possible to have any type of disaccord with one's body's sex without that disaccord being mediated through relationships of that body to social context and gender? In terms of the diagram, does 'a feeling of disaccord with one's body's sex' consist in travelling from B->B, or must it consist in some path like B->G->B or B->S->G->B. The intermediary steps are the origin of such mediation. An instance of B->G->B would look something like 'the pitch of my voice generates feelings of disaccord with my body because it impinges upon the expectations I have for it'. If this characterisation seems right to you, I'd like to call the immediate connection (the red loop) 'Bearing1', which I think is your conception of bearing, and the mediated connection 'Bearing2'.
In terms of denying such a thing exists, I can perhaps see why this is such a strong intuition, and something that was part of my misunderstanding. You touched on this here:
Quoting Pfhorrest
I think people who do not feel such disaccord are likely to doubt it exists except in the mediated form. Because we've not felt it, we will interpret instances of Bearing1 as instances of Bearing2 because Bearing2 is more consistent with our phenomenological intuitions about our self relationship with our bodies. Incorporating the possibility of Bearing1 for us is like trying to see the missing shade of blue. It's not a part of our sensations and thus will not be incorporated into our phenomenological understanding of our bodies except conceptually. We who do not feel disaccord will probably only grasp such a thing through analogy.
A difficulty here is describing what Bearing1 feels like in a manner which does not also suggest Bearing2. It seems to me you have acknowledged the reciprocity of the relationship between sensations (one mode of self relationship to one's body) and social context. I believe @StreetlightX highlighted this in their response:
Quoting StreetlightX
The task of articulating Bearing1, giving us folks who do not feel such a disaccord an opportunity to conceptualise it without having to feel it, in a way that does not also implicate Bearing2, seems extremely difficult. Especially when we have already granted the influence of social constructions upon our sensations. It's a very tightly wound knot to cleave apart.
Though perhaps you imagine Bearing1 generating feelings of disaccord with the performative aspect of sociological gender and disaccord with social norms, so there's never any mediation of our sensations through the social contexts learned in the experiential history of our bodies. Or rather, such mediation comes later, and is dependent upon the presence of Bearing1.
Especially when such a feeling is so basic for you:
As a side note, even stipulating Robinson Crusoe scenarios removes the social mediating factors, so it is not a particularly good contrast case for Bearing 1 and Bearing 2, it is unlikely to provide people who do not have Bearing1 sensations already with an intuition they could not reduce to Bearing2.
Something I was thinking about on the way home was if we imagine a scenario of a baby growing up in a cell with no human contact, it's fed by an automatic feeding tube. Trying to convey to the adult produced by this what affection felt like would probably require describing it in terms of the feeding tube and hunger; and to those of us who have felt affection, we know this could never suffice.
Oh, it's a great many more times. Many many. Nowhere near halfway yet.
How about making a "distinction" between the two: I'm going to assume by 'feeling' you mean desire and lack of,
Early you said it was a matter of preference - which is not independent of desire (feeling).
Quoting Pfhorrest
You then go on to say, "disambiguation" is purely about semantics in this context, and say the title is strictly about gender, but then go on to say:
Quoting Pfhorrest
Viewing 'sex' and 'gender' separately in some form of "bearing" thing without referencing either 'socio/psych', while they all simultaneously overlap by default of the concepts to which you claimed.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Honestly I don't even think normal people don't understand what trans people are talking about. It is just the refusal to address what other people are countering with in response, which is essentially your posts.
No idea what the "bigot" stuff is about. It is not bigotry or insulting to smooth out incoherence. No one is talking about 50's housewives, feminists or politics. You are miss the big picture; then blocking it out based on feelings of non-existent persecution.
Yes, that's more or less what I'm thinking. I don't see there being any such thing as Bearing2; I see that as just ordinary gender identity in its strict sense, that I'm trying to disambiguate bearing from. Though I'm not necessarily denying that social factors can have a causative influence on bearing. I'm not postulating anything about the origins of the feelings one has about one's body shape, just terminology to talk about those feelings independently from talking about feelings about social factors.
Quoting fdrake
The difference with bearing, I think, is that it should be easy for a cis person to imagine how they would feel if they had bodily features of the opposite sex, and so get a comparable mental picture of how someone who feels discomfort with their body feels. (If said person does not find themselves imagining discomfort at that scenario, then I would say by definition that makes them not cis. Maybe not trans either, but some kind of nonbinary.)
I don't think this is right. I'm cis, I can quite happily imagine body-swapping with a woman friend, and would rather enjoy what it felt like to have a body with tits, but the matter is mostly indifferent to me. Give it or take it, it's not a need I have based on internal conflict. I really don't think it's easy to imagine what it is like to inhabit a trans person's body for a cis person.
If it was, I'd guess there'd be no need for a philosophical account of 'bearing', no? It'd be pretty easy for cis people to grok the disaccord.
Consider it by analogy with orientation. "Straight" doesn't just mean "not gay", it means "only attracted to the opposite sex; not interested in sex with the same sex". If you're indifferent about who you have sex with, that's not straight. It's also not gay. It's bisexual, or pansexual, or maybe asexual if you just don't care at all about whether or not you have sex with anyone.
Likewise with "gender" in the sense that I'm calling "bearing"; I'll use both the usual "-gender" terms and my proposed "-phoric" alternatives for clarity. "Cisgender"/"cisphoric" doesn't just mean "not transgender/transphoric", it means "only comfortable as one's birth sex; not interested at all in being (like) the opposite sex". If you're indifferent about what sex you are (like), that's not cisgender/cisphoric. It's also not transgender/transphoric. It's bigender/biphoric, pangender/panphoric, or maybe agender/aphoric if you just don't care at all about what sex you are (like).
And Swan, you're the one being incoherent. A mod said as much last night. This entire thread is about trying to clear up the incoherence already present in the existing discourse, and you're the one objecting to the very having of that conversation. I'm not going to dignify your nonsense with a more detailed response.
This is essentially what I pointed out 4 pages back without it even having to get this far.
That is because he is talking about dysphoria; and viewing everything through a dsyphoric lens, and seeing what is in this lens to be consistent among vast amounts of people (we are 'dysphoric' or 'mistyped'), and this is the case. It is not the case. And it is nonsense. Empty tags with no shag.
This was before the other chick started saying transgenders could be 56 other genders and still be transgender, (and this is a justification they make for morphing and augmenting biological phenotypic sex-attributes to be the opposite sex) while simultaneously saying "transgenderism" is unrelated to sex, but is simply a matter of gender.
Not one thing has added up here.
Errr... I do feel some amount of revulsion in thinking that I'd be agender? I mean... Yeah. I'm pretty happy as a bloke, I'm not indifferent to having my bits in the configuration that they're in, it's just not something I think about. I don't have sensations of disaccord or accord with my own sex! They're just bits! But they're my bits. In my book this is completely consistent with being cis, though you can absolutely call me agender if this is accurate.
I think my imagination of what it's like to be in a woman's body remains an intellectual exercise, I don't think of it as something I want or need, I don't feel like 'in an ideal world I'd have tits', my... orientation... is squarely towards my own sex. So's my bearing, there's no desire there except for curiosity, no conflict.
I think this is a case of a one sided distinction, it only feels like a distinction from one side. Like native Gallic speakers and the rest of the Scots.
So I understand that people who feel no particular discomfort with the bodies they were born with -- and to clarify, I am okay with the body I was born with, and wouldn't call myself dysphoric, which is why I don't call myself trans -- who wouldn't mind if their bodies were different might think, like I did for a while, that everybody who isn't trans is like that. But there are other people who are much more strongly "un-trans" than that, and I'm pretty sure that those people are supposed to be the referents of "cis", with people in between being something in between. And, just like the Kinsey scale results show that a lot more people are more bisexual/pansexual/etc than we think, I suspect that a lot more people are somewhere more toward the middle of the spectrum than strictly cis, even if they still lean toward the cis side of things.
What seems intuitive to me is that cisgender people are so identified (enfleshed?) with their sex that it becomes transparent to them, there are no distinctions and sites of tension that would furnish any Bearing1 sensations. I do sometimes have critical thoughts about gendered social styles, but that's not coupled with my body at all in my intuitions.
Maybe if I actually was transported to a woman's body I'd feel revulsed, I dunno. I'm sure that some cis people do feel revulsed or yucked out by body-switching thoughts. But it's not a necessity.
I'm also sure that people have different intensities of attachment to the sex of their body, but it'd be extremely difficult to pin down the aetiology of the intensity differences through observational studies or anecdotes (see the stuff on Bearing 1 vs Bearing 2).
There isn't necessarily a medical dimension to the OP's ideas. Regardless, if what you're saying is true, your needlessly aggressive style in the thread has wasted your time; it's frustrated the progress of your discussion with the OP.
I've never disagreed with this. Comfort is transparent; if everything feels fine, it doesn't feel like much at all. I made the analogy earlier to race: white people don't have to think about their race because it's the invisible default and nobody makes a big deal out of it, but that doesn't mean there is no such race as white. Also similar is the concept of "privilege" in general: privilege is equivalent to the absence of problems other people have, so people who have it don't notice it, you only notice the lack of it (that is, the lack of the absence of your problems, which is just to say, you notice your problems).
I can't make any sense of Swan's nonsense, but it sounds like he thinks I'm saying that everybody has dysphoria? If so, that's absolutely not the case. I'm saying that dysphoria/euphoria about your physical sex is a separate thing from anything to do with social identification, presentation, role, etc; that you can have or lack those -phoric feelings either way regardless of any of the other social stuff.
Things are starting to make more sense to me now.
So what I find interesting about putting 'sensations of dis/accord with your body's sexual characteristics' = bearing right now is that you can discuss it in terms of intensity of accord/disaccord. You can leverage self reports and phenomenology to set up a scale. Perhaps you have people like me who feel very little about it clustered near the centre of the scale. Clustered on high disaccord you have people with severe dysphoria and mutilators, clustered on high accord you have your 'phorics'; people who feel in accord with their bodies.
Quoting Pfhorrest
You bracket the aetiology of the felt intensity, it's completely ephemeral to the idea, then you can start talking about trajectories in this abstract space. Most people rarely move about at all, there's no need to transition and no conflict, we remain unperturbed from a point of no felt disaccord with our sex or mild positive accord with our sex. This is suggestive.
(1) If someone feels no disaccord, they seem likely not to change.
(2) If someone feels disaccord, they seem more likely to change.
(1) seems pretty easy to verify by looking at frequency/intensity of gender non-conforming behaviour of kids in suitable longitudinal case studies (after some operationalisation of gender non-conforming frequency/intensity, sure this has been done, at least case reports).
(2) is where it gets really interesting, if you coupled it with an account of gendered socialisation, would the changes in felt disaccord intensity track awareness of gender norms? Another way of putting it, does Bearing 1 become a proxy variable for Bearing 2? It seems likely to me that feeling large disaccord when very young would lead to feeling larger disaccord later, differences in felt disaccord intensity are amplified through gender normativity over time.
As for the phorics, I have no idea how you'd study that.
Yeah, my apologies. That was a late-night too-many-beers post. I hastily read through the OP and, as you say, made 'bearing' out to be a sort of inclination toward representations of 'sociological gender.' & Even if I had been right in my understanding, my post would've still been a mess.
This makes sense. I think if you're comfortable bracketing the aetiology of accord/disaccord sensations, it makes the presentation a lot easier initially. If you're going to start talking about bodily sensations which lots of cis people won't have, you'll probably get mired in the bog like you did with me. A discussion of the aetiology of felt disaccord with one's body's sex characteristics is something you can present independently of the intensity of felt disaccord. Or in the terms I used earlier, you can save the distinction between Bearing1 and Bearing2 (immediate vs mediate feelings of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics) until after you've established the relevant vocabulary to describe positions in the abstract space.
But I guess maybe you want to emphasise the 'purely bodily' or 'purely mental' nature of the felt disaccord with bearing (which deals with its aetiology) rather than the raw intensity?
Regardless, they look to require different accounts to me. One looks at the intensity independent of the aetiology, one looks at the aetiology, as usual you can use the dependent variable (intensity) to study how it varies with the independent variable (aetiology).
How would you go about establishing that there are non-(socially mediated) self relationships of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics, then?
Again, it's like orientation. Saying that someone is straight or gay isn't saying anything at all about why they feel attracted to the sex they do, just that they feel that way. Likewise, bearing is nothing at all to do with why someone feels some way, just that they feel some way. How can we establish that someone is gay or straight or bi? By asking them who they find attractive. Likewise, you establish someone's bearing by asking how they feel about the prospect of having this or that body.
And just like being gay doesn't necessarily imply anything about wearing dresses or anything social like that, neither does being (as I'd term it) transphoric. The meaning of a bearing label is meant to impart no information about any social gender stuff at all. There might be a causal relationship between social gender things, bearing, orientation, sex, and so on, but we can't even talk about what those relationships might be without terminology to identify each of the different things.
All I am proposing is a term term to talk about one of those things without having to say anything about another of them at the same time. With such terminology established, you could do whatever kind of science you want to to investigate why people feel this way or that. My proposal is not taking any stance at all on the conclusions of those investigations.
You're so close.
All you have to do is fully remove the idea of the body determining identity. The trans women is not a women because she senses female biology (the biological entity of a human, whatever parts it has, is male, female, etc., on its identity), but rather because she is a woman and so whatever her biology, she is a woman with the biology of a woman.
So, I hope you believe that I understand what you mean by bearing. I am trying to.
I'm perfectly able to imagine that being trans or gender non-conforming can result from feelings of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics, but it isn't obvious to me at all that being trans/gender non-conforming isn't a less intense expression of accord with the opposite M/F sociological gender identity. Or more precisely, whether any articulation of why someone is in that group was generated by a feeling of inner conflict with their sexual characteristics or not. I care about the aetiology here because expressly, you don't want to bracket it and render the thing merely phenomenological. So when you say:
For some background on mediation click here.
The relevant distinction to me seems to be:
(1) You can have feelings of disaccord about your body's sexual characteristics that do not concern sociological aspects of gender identity associated with the body.
(2) You can have feelings of disaccord about your body's sexual characteristics that were at some point causally independent of the sociological aspects of gender identity associated with the body.
(1) is bearing as I understand it. I believe you also have something like (2) in mind when you consider (1). (1) is phenomenological and can bracket the aetiology of the feeling, (2) cannot bracket aetiology as it depends on the causal isolation of feelings of disaccord from social constructions. If there was a Robinson Crusoe kid, they might feel some inner ache about their body being wrong, and that's a case of (1) and (2), but out in the wild, we can't readily distinguish (1) and (2).
So say someone is trans. This is influenced by biological characteristics. They're a girl in terms of sex, some body features (hormonal environment of the foetus, say) influence their later gender non-conformity and the presence of Bearing1 sensations. How can I tell if this influence is not socially mediated? I can't just read off an aetiology from their self reports, attributions of causal structure are always interpretations. So:
Let's say I'm designing a study about trans people and feelings of inner conflict about their biological sex. I'll take a big cohort of people from various backgrounds, and I'll filter for ones whose sociological gender non-conformity persists through adolescence, and include them in the group. These are people I want to assess to see if there are felt mismatches between their biological/natal sex and their body which are not mediated by social factors. So I have to construct exclusion/inclusion criteria for the group. What indicators can I possibly use to form these inclusion/exclusion criteria? They're all behavioural. Like here, about an Andrew in an APA study about treatment and developmental support strategies for gender non-conforming people, and diagnostic approaches for resultant medical issues like gender dysphoria (and how that's even a thing):
What I can tell from this is that 'from an extremely early age, Andrew's (sociological) gender expression is non-conforming', but that's unfortunate for trying to establish the presence of (2) in Andrew using this data, because we already have a case of sociological gender non-conformity perhaps in addition to feelings of disaccord with Andrew's body's sexual characteristics which were not influenced by any social dynamics.
The study also notes:
So if we take someone with extreme dysphoria as a young kid, a good candidate for having feelings of disaccord with their body's sexual characteristics which are causally isolated from their sociological gender identity, these high intensity states of disaccord with their sexual characteristics may also derive from high pressure to conform to sociological gender roles! So instead of it being a case of (2), it'd be a case of (1).
Edit: If the diagrams helped you, I'm thinking of this like:
(A) Chains like Body->Body->Gender->Social Context->Body are candidates for felt disaccord with one's sex which are not preceded by or mediated through the other stuff.
(B) Chains like Body->Gender->Social Context->Body->Body are not, there's a Body->Body path there, but it was preceded by a path from Body to Gender to Social Context to Body, thinking of this as an internalisation of social norms mediating one's self interpretations and sensations of disaccord.
I take it on trust that someone can have feelings of discomfort with their body's sexual characteristics which do not concern their sociological gender identity, but I can't take it on trust that these feelings would occur without exposure to any social mediators. In terms of my diagram, that feelings of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics occur in the path B->B without having some path which did not contain something other than B at a previous point in time. Or more prosaically, "I feel discomfort with the sexual characteristics of my body and did so without any social influence" vs "I feel discomfort with the sexual characteristics of my body and did so with some social influence". The distinction's important, as it's very similar to "Immediately after I lost my job, I had states of sadness which did not concern my job, life sucks" and being sad in general "Immediately after I lost my job, I had low mood which was not influenced by losing my job". I mean... someone's just lost their job and they're fucking sad, they tell you that this has nothing to do with their job, but all that says is that their states of sadness do not concern their job, not that their states of sadness were causally isolated from losing their job.
Alas you are quite wrong. A blue bin lacks entirely the necessary attribute of greenness. Greenness is declared necessary, and declared to be a matter of substance that underlies clothing. If the substance of the bin is blue, it remains blue no matter that you clothe it or paint it or label it in green. You are guilty here of the very thing you complain of in others WRT sex.
Just so you know, I'm very open to the possibility of your proposed structure of the feeling, but I don't think I can take any views/sensations of disaccord with one's sexual characteristics as causally independent or conceptually non-implicated of social constructions without seeing a good account of why this would be. You seem to acknowledge the co-mediation/reciprocal dependence of felt disaccord with one's sexual characteristics with gendered social constructions, and I do too, and precisely because of that co-mediation/reciprocal dependence I'm skeptical that aetiologies of such felt disaccord exist without that co-mediation. I tried to express that by articulating the difficulties in even studying such a thing.
Though I do think it is useful to have a word which brackets the aetiology, like bearing.
Fair enough! Maybe anyway.
Sensations associated with bearing = sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced OR sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are socially influenced.
And for the purposes of this thread, you don't care whether there are no sensations associated with felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics which are not socially influenced? (IE, you don't care whether all sensations of felt disaccord with one's sex characteristics are socially influenced)
Only regarding the bins have I had misread. (I actually found the bin thing online last night) and the point was clarified.
With humans I am just saying what you are saying. It is impossible to transition to the opposite sex if you lack necessary attributes. It is not dependent on clothing or any labeling or something similar extra shit.
I think that's close to logically equivalent to what I'm saying, but that seems a weird way to put it.
The "close to" part is that bearing isn't just about disaccord, but also about accord; or equivalently, since accord is often invisible, not just about having the feelings, but also about not having the feelings. People who feel nothing in particular at all about their physical sex still have a bearing, it's just a different bearing than those who do feel something or another about that. Just like people who are indifferent to who they have sex with still have a sexual orientation.
The "weird way to put it" part is that you phrase it as the disjunction of two things regarding social influence, when social influence is kind of an irrelevant afterthought. Conversely, "not necessarily concerning social matters" is an important part of the definition of bearing, the part that distinguishes it from gender identity.
So I would rephrase that as: Bearing = felt (dis)accord with one's sex characteristics, which are not necessarily concerning social matters (whether or not they are socially influenced).
Quoting fdrake
Pretty much. I'm not saying anything about whether or not that is the case, but it has no bearing (pun intended) on defining the concept of bearing, which is all I'm doing here.
I'd do the same thing with accord, socially mediated feelings of accord with one's sex characteristics etc... But point taken. You really don't care here about whether the sensations of dis/accord are socially mediated (in their causal structure) or not.
Quoting Pfhorrest
:up:
I'm curious though, do you care in general whether the sensations of dis/accord are always socially mediated?
Alas you are not saying at all what I am saying. You are, from my POV, the bureaucrat, laying down the law about what does and does not count as a green bin, or a woman, or whatever. I am saying that a bucket with "green bin" written on it will function just fine as long as the bureaucrats butt out, and a well disposed dog or a teddy bear can take on at least some responsibilities of a man.
Nah. Biology is biology, medical sciences agree. It's independent of my personal feels and "man/woman".
No it isn't. :groan:
Biology is mere biology. Society picks certain biological features and gives them significance, and completely ignores others. Fashion declares that heroin chic is the epitome of femininity - then next year, something else. The rules are bureaucratic and unstable, and nothing to do with biology.
It’s an interesting scientific question, but not of much philosophical interest, and I’m a little suspicious of putting too much emphasis on it for sociopolitical reasons. I’d say it’s similar to the question of what makes someone gay. Maybe there’s a gay gene, maybe fetal hormones are responsible, maybe it’s something about upbringing, maybe it’s as much a choice as what kind of food or music you like. That’s a valid scientific question, but not really of philosophical interest, and when someone seems to care exceptionally much about it, it makes me wonder why; gay/trans people are what they are regardless of why they are, and it shouldn’t make any sociopolitical difference... unless you think there’s something wrong with being like that and looking to prevent it.
I think it's a pretty interesting philosophical issue though. There's certainly a subtext of 'so they're not really women/men! Aha!' from related discussions sometimes, so I share the hesitation.
But I would also hesitate to frame it as a purely scientific question, as gender essentialism and (strict?) constructionism do bear on it. IE: there are some social factors related to gender which are determined solely by bodily sex characteristics for the former and there are no social factors related to gender which are determined solely by bodily sex characteristics for the later (and they are determined solely by social structures).
I think if you make that kind of thing a purely scientific question, you cede rhetorical ground to those who collapse gender and sex on (very shaky) scientific grounds, and those who do so are both very wrong and often politically motivated when they do it.
This is probably more about... cultural effects of the framing of an issue... than the OP or essentialism/constructionism.
Yeah I figured. I think it's obviously false. Though social-body interactions do obviously happen (passing/not passing and avoiding/having resultant feelings of disaccord is as much a constraint on vocal chord movements as it is on speaking style). I imagine we agree that while norms and sensations make bodies act in different ways, they both are sources of influence. And that sex characteristics and gender are so messily coupled in norms and perceptions it's difficult to tear relevant behaviour (like childhood non-conformity in our discussion ) apart aetiologically.
I see it like... since it's so difficult to tear them apart, essentialism must be false, but since it's so difficult to tear them apart, it's very easy to see things in essentialist terms.
So you can make sensible definitions like you did in the OP, there's still lots of difficult work to do in giving exegesis of basic points/teaching, and I hope that bearing helps you clear up some TERF misapprehensions.
In a trans context, the sensations have to be social mediated because they have to be indexed to certain concepts and lingistic practices. Dysphoria about one's body doesn't itself entail a sex or gender identification. We have to understand or learn our bodies relate in these specific ways of identity.
Without this social aspect, one would just have an sensation and sense about their body. Dysphoria would manifest not as an idenfication as male or female, but just need for different body parts.
I've been trying not to talk about myself any more because Swan is an asshole and I don't want to expose myself personally to that, but I feel like I am the best example I have of the way that those two things can come apart, and my own experience is the prime motivating factor I had to start thinking about this to begin with.
With regards to my physical body, I was born male, and haven't done anything explicitly to change that, though apparently somehow or another I seem to have rather feminine breasts. to the point that multiple people have commented on them, including someone once asking if they were real (all of them friendly, not taunting or anything). I never really thought I looked particularly femme for most of my life, though I wanted to, so those comments always made me feel good.
As for how I feel about that body, I don't have bad feelings about the maleness of it. I wouldn't call myself dysphoric. I feel positively good about some traditionally male, unfeminine things, like my height and strength. But I get good feelings at the thought of being more feminine, just physically, not talking about anything social yet. When I shave my face or body hair I feel better about my body. When I wear clothes that accentuate feminine curves (e.g. some shirts hide my breasts, some enhance them) I feel better about t my body. If I use one of those machine learning face-changing apps to see myself as a woman, I like what I see. If we lived in an immersive virtual reality embodied in lifelike avatars that we could customize to our liking, I would full time wear the body of myself-if-I-hadn't-had-a-Y-chromosome, but at my current height and strength, and with a penis for a clitoris. It's just cost and risk and quality and other pragmatic factors, combined with the lack of any particularly pressing unhappiness with my current body, that keep me from trying to approximate that in real life more than I do.
As for social identification, presentation, and role: I couldn't give a damn about pronouns. Most people gender me male and it doesn't bother me at all, it's normal and I don't think anything of it. Depending on how I'm presenting, people occasionally gender me female, and I feel a little like I've been complimented. I work from home and while there (so most of my time) I wear dresses or skirts. When I go outside I'm usually doing some kind of physical activity like hiking so I wear pants (men's, because pockets are useful), but often with women's shirts, but not always. I have long wavy hair all the time. I'm really busy and stressed so I'm lazy about shaving, just once or twice a week, but if I had the time I'd be clean-shaven all the time (and I wish I could just be hairless always without shaving).
So if someone asks me what my gender is... I don't have a straightforward answer with the terminology that we use now. To my ear as a native English speaker "man" and "woman" mean, descriptively, to most people, male and female, so I'm a "man" in that, yeah, I'm male, if that's what you're asking. But if you're asking how I want to be treated... I don't think men and women should be treated differently, so it doesn't matter, just be nice to me. Are you asking what pronouns you should use? I don't care, whatever feels natural to you, it doesn't mean anything to me and language ideally wouldn't compel us to gender people anyway. Are you asking what sex I'd like to be? Mostly female, but it's complicated (see above), and you're probably not really interested in that anyway. But that's the only aspect of "gender" that matters at all to me personally, so it'd be nice to have a way of talking about it, without implying anything about what pronouns you should use for me or anything else like that.
Well it does, unfortunately. This is an almost universal psychological disease in the West. There is hardly a male or a female that does not spend inordinate time working out, not to be healthy, but to develop a six-pack, or otherwise "body-sculpt", or then there are the chemical bodybuilders, the cosmetic surgery industry, make up, the flattering clothes designed to make one look - thinner, curvier, taller, broad-shoulderier. The pressure to conform to some fantasy (gendered) body-ideal is about irresistible and if you want to appear in media, or work in a public space it is completely irresistible.
And the misery all this futile effort entails... and the lives of those who cannot or will not conform, are poor, nasty, brutish and short. And above all ugly - the unforgivable sin.
Can you even conceive it, that people bathe in bleach and shampoo with caustic soda in their effort to conform?
Seems to me that the lost tempers and tribal signalling are mainly about this.
@Swan (and I, and possibly @Bitter Crank, @Terrapin Station and @Artemis) incredulous that gender-non-conformists, of all people, would be essentialist about sex, to the extent even of being able to wish to have a different sexual essence. (As though anyone even had one.)
OP and the mods keen to defend gender-non-conformists whatever their thesis, especially since attacks, and civilised objections too, so often suggest essentialism. Like, a notion that cultural norms have a biological origin. (Which, when I put it like that...)
But the suggestion is often mistaken, i.e. misread, not there.
Exactly. "Sexual essence/essentialist about sex" is a good way to put it. It's weird to me that the whole thing seems to be based on kowtowing to "sexual essentialism," since sexual essentialism is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.
Yes, exactly that. It is not rocket science to see the contradictions. The same craziness is happening in this thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6670/study-nearly-four-fifths-of-gender-minority-students-have-mental-health-issues/p6
And gender non-conformists are a part of the highly sensitive infantilized and protected groups, no matter how many contradictions and reaffirmations their are, but claim to "not be doing". This is how the system gets rich. They will defend anything they put out, no matter what it is, so long as they have lots of feelings. Also, everyone else that does not agree with this insanity is a "Right Wing" or some kind of sadistic asshole trying to remove away rights and hurt people for fun. Lol. It's just hyperbolic, untrue, and ridiculous, but since they are already a infantilized and protected group, just feelings are enough to shutdown even civilized objections and grant them immunity from taking offense with the freedom to insult without consequence.
https://youtu.be/JLEj7AKJkuM
You lot who hate tribal signalling and infighting sure do have the same talking points.
Since money/ownership is a mythical cultural construct. Folks should be combating the cultural construct, not bowing to it while claiming to be trying to buck it.
Somehow, I suspect my version will not garner such enthusiastic support.
Don't let people think you actually oppose gender-non-conformism, though? As though you think conventional genders are natural?
Obviously at least half of economic and political theories try to understand money as a social construction, not a natural or theological one. So your comparison is welcome after all.
But it's a joke, do you not see, to expect a socialist in a capitalist society to refuse to bow to the rituals of money and property ? One gets a job and pays one's taxes, and campaigns.
Political, religious, economic, philosophical, musical, sexual and gender subversives... I expect them to subvert, because I see them subvert.
Well, first we've got to figure out what we're even referring to by folks claiming to be trying to buck some concept of money.
It appears that way because the group of sex essentialists (@Swan @Bitter Crank, @Terrapin Station and @Artemis) haven't realised the terms of identification. Trans people are not non-conforming because they fail to meet a standard required to be a sex or gender. They are non-conforming because their identity breaks with what's expected of them by a social expectation.
One does not, for example, need a penis to be male. Or a vagina to be female. Like wearing long hair , dresses or enjoying sports, to have a penis or a vagina is just a another property of a person. Identity is a distinct fact from these properties. Some women have a vagina. Some women have a penis.
In a world where identity is properly understood, trans people would not be trans. Not because they wouldn't have an identity, body or dysphoria, but rather because whatever manifestation of those three they had, it would not break identity rules for them to be trans. The prominent trans woman of imagination would just be a woman, with a penis and dysphoria about her body. She would not to trans in the sense of violating an identity expectation. A woman with a penis, who senses her body with a vagina, would be just as much expected of a woman as having a vagina and feeling it belongs.
Missing the forest for the trees. The social expectations and myths to change ones body do not vanish in a world which properly recognises and is inclusive sex and gender. Alteration of bodies is, in the end, a question of bodies. Social forces manipulating people to that end can still function perfectly well in that space. Body ideals, presented as irresistible, can occur perfectly well in themselves. A lot of the already do. The six packed men and thin woman plastered over advertising, for example, don't always come with a specific reference to gender (i.e. "Women must be this", "Man must be this" ), but instead are shown and imply the value of the body (whatever sex or gender it might be).
We are dropping the ball if we think dissatisfaction with bodies is merely a question of whether if someone with certain properties can belong to sex or gender. A paradise inclusive of sex and gender (in the sense of recognising both are identities in themselves, not given by any particular property or another) does not amount to overcoming dissatisfaction with bodies and social expectations surrounding it.
But then you not only reinforce the received, mythical psycho-sexual essences called genders and orientations, you invent some more and call them bearings. This is more essentialism not less. You aren't questioning the abstraction of masculinity and femininity (and all their specious, arbitrary and culture-specific associations) from biologically male and female at all. You are reinforcing it by proposing to measure or survey people according to, for example, their
Quoting Pfhorrest
... i.e. of having a different sexual essence, no?
That's just having an identity. There is no specific set of properties which amount to being more feminine or not.
Anyone with a sex or gender is in this position. The cis man with a penis who thinks "I'm male" has the same sort significance and feeling of belonging. (it's also true of anyone without a sex and gender, since they will have a thought and sense of belonging to "no sex and gender." )
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
You should probably take that up with the OP, as the whole sentence is,
Quoting Pfhorrest
Willow, I think the only semblance of common ground among everyone (else) here is acceptance of biological sex as an unproblematic (though complex) biological classification.
If you were at least on that ground (but I fear not), then I could read your comment,
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
as a critique of essentialism about sex. Would that be appropriate?
Grateful for a brief outline.
I know that, which is why the fact I don't accept the essentialism of biological sex (by this I mean the idea that someone's anatomical properties make them masculine of feminine) is integral to the point I was making.
My point is not only the properties of gender roles like long hair, wearing dresses,etc. which are essentialist, but also the anatomical properties which are supposed to define sex. Why does one need a penis to be male? Why does one need a vagina to be female? If identity of male and female is indeed non-essentialist, then it should be possible for someone of any body to have an identity of male or female. Even in terms of se, the category of male and female cannot be reduced to a property of body .
The identity of male and female, even in sex, is only given by the identity itself. One can only be male or female, whatever their anatomy, by the fact of having the identity itself. There is no set of properties which makes anyone male or female.
So when Pfhorrest asserts a feminine identity, it's not on the basis of having certain properties which must make them feminine. No essential properties are granting feminine identity. There are no such properties!
Rather, the feminine identity is given in terms of itself.
That's to say, Pfhorrest has a property of feminine identity which is present entirely on its own terms. Not a feature granted by having some set of properties which make one feminine, but to exist with a fact of feminine identity itself.
Just as a cis man with a penis exists with a male identity itself and thinks the concept of man is of him, Pfhorrest exists with a feminine identity and thinks of the concept of woman of her/them/he (I do not know Pfhorrest's pronouns. Normally, I would just use "they" when I don't know pronouns, but I'll put a range here just to make a point about the self-definition of identity).
Just a bunch of made up backwards anti-realist junk science with low philosophical merit. Best to leave, imo.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Jordan Peterson claims that the term of identity should not be overused; he insists that the gender identities under the question should have been constructed through the continuous and long-term of social construction:
“To refuse to engage in the social aspect of identity negotiation — to insist that what you say you are is what everyone must accept — is simply to confuse yourself and everyone else (as no one at all understands the rules of your game, not least because they have not yet been formulated).
The continually expanded plethora of “identities” recently constructed and provided with legal status thus consist of empty terms which (1) do not provide those who claim them with any real social role or direction; (2) confuse all who must deal with the narcissism of the claimant, as the only rule that can exist in the absence of painstakingly, voluntarily and mutually negotiated social role is “it’s morally wrong to say or do anything that hurts my feelings”; (3) risks generating psychological chaos among the vast majority of individuals exposed to the doctrines that insist that identity is essentially fluid and self-generating”.
One could reject Peterson’s arguments as too reactionary and obstructionistic, neglecting the essential rights of the oppressed group. Or, maybe he simply
cannot catch up with our fast-changing time?
Just the opposite, which I covered in the other gender thread:
[quote= "Harry Hindu"]Sure we categorize the world with words. Sex is an anatomical category, not a social identity. "Sex" refers to those differences of anatomy and their related functions and behaviors that exist in 99.9% organisms of all species that use sex to procreate.
"Man"/"Woman" are terms that refer to differences in species and not just sex.[/quote]
No. Bearing has nothing to do with any “essence”. It has to do with how you feel about your physical sex. Orientation isn’t a social construct either: it’s a fact about what kind of person someone wants to fuck. Bearing is a similar fact about the kind of person someone wants to BE. Physically. No weird social or metaphysical anything about it.
FWIW I think I mostly disagree with Willow about the metaphysics/language of all this.
Edit to elaborate: I think I mostly disagree with Willow inasmuch as I don't think there are metaphysical essences of anything at all, a general principle with no focus on gender specifically. The closest thing there are to essences are defining characteristics, which is a linguistic matter, not a metaphysical one (how are words defined?). In my proposal about bearing I'm not taking any stance at all on what the proper referents of the words "man" and "woman" are. In general I operate on the principle that words mean what people agree that they mean, and while I expect that most people mean to refer to sexes when they say "man" or "woman", I understand that trans people and allies more usually mean genders or bearings, and so in conversation with them I just roll with the understanding that that's what they mean. I find it an unfortunate circumstance that there is this purely linguistic split that unnecessarily implies some kind of deep metaphysical divide when it's really all about the referents of some words, and I kind of hope that philosophical clarification of all the surrounding topics, like my introduction of the concept of bearing, could help to eventually clear that up.
Yes, I agree. But I think we are even more losing the ball down the gutter if we think that gender dysphoria is unconnected with the almost universal body dysmorphia, eating disorders, etc, and vast, vast, beauty industry telling everyone that their intimate places (for instance) are smelly hairy and disgusting, but can be made appealing with the application of much product and frequent surgery - without it, you are not a proper member of the human race and deserve to be shunned by all.
We are all well-versed in the biological method of reproduction. That is a sperm cell and an ovum cell join, science stuff happens, 9 months later comes the bouncing bundle.
To quote Marcus Aurelius; . Well, we all have membranes, and we can all spurt mucus.
Instead of saying 'Oh that's Emma. Emma likes to be called as Steve, have sex with some girls and
some boys.', it would be literally as easy to say 'Hey Steve!'
Instead of worrying about whether clothes in the store are for people with a penis or people with vagina, why not worry about whether you like the colour or the cut and the way it looks on you and the way it makes you feel.
If you are at a point in life where you want to reproduce. Options exist, either adopt/foster. Surrogacy, IVF etc.
If someone finds a way to be happy, let them. If two people find a way to make each other happy let them. If three people find a way to make each other happy who cares, they're happy. I am happy. You should be happy.
To put it simply a side-effect of our 'scientific evolution' means that there are no physical barriers to each person on earth simply being themselves and being happy. The only obstacles to this are 'social' ones.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo
The UK has got it right, I think. And they've been very clear about the fact that this doesn't pose any risk to trans people. But it does remove the risk from biological females (i prefer the term women, ftr, but that's nto important here).
Nice post - I think its possible you're still perhaps uneasy with some of hte more confronting issues. One might be that junk is not relevant to whether one is one sex or not. Klinefelters shows us that males can have "female" breast development to a certain degree. Or Swyer syndrome giving (some) males a vulva. Unfortuantely, even the literature that gets published makes this mistake
Under the heading "Sex Determination" we get the following:
"The pioneering experiments of fetal sexual differentiation carried out by Alfred Jost in the 1940’s clearly established that the existence of the testes determines the sexually dimorphic fate of the internal and external genitalia (Fig. 2) (58, 59). Irrespective of their chromosomal constitution, when the gonadal primordia differentiate into testes, all internal and external genitalia develop following the male pathway. When no testes are present, the genitalia develop along the female pathway. The existence of ovaries has no effect on fetal differentiation of the genitalia. The paramount importance of testicular differentiation for fetal sex development has prompted the use of the expression “sex determination” to refer to the differentiation of the bipotential or primitive gonads into testes."
These are phenotypic considerations and are about Sex Differentiation, not determination (not to mention that's also misleading - the sexually dimorphic 'fate' is tied to fertility). The activation (or not) of the SRY gene is what determines the above set of possible carry-throughs. The above pathways overlap/go awry when there is a genetic aberration after sex has been determined, in terms of form and function. SRY is the determinate of sex. It is misleading to claim that odd chromosomal situations, or ambiguous/unexpected phenotypes are determinative of sex (I do not think this is what you were saying, but this is my first post in the thread so making more of it than you need care about).
What "woman" and "man" mean, socially, has not determinate imo. Use them how you see fit. Just don't pretend you're talking about sex, and everything is generally a-ok.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This would mean a world where trans people literally did not exist. That is both counter to the physical facts at hand, and the concept of a trans identity. It also violates the majority of what I know to be the motivation for transitioning. Otherwise, you'd have to do literally nothing whatsoever to ameliorate the suffering - which leads to the conclusion that transgenderism (or whatever term) doesn't actually exist. That may be the case, in some sense (meaning, I can almost agree with the contention - it's just that there is no coherent way to call that person a woman and have that mean anything)
100%.
A very important, and meaningful ruling as the response has made quite clear.
Also, wtf are you talking about in your example? What direct of trans would have anyone giving a fuck about any of that?
The lobbyists that forced this issue in the UK courts were principally concerned with not allowing rapists in vulnerable women's spaces. If that sounds like it's totally irrelevant to anything regarding the social construction of gender or whether it's biologically essential, it is. But them's the breaks. The decision was made by and for fuckwits.
Hence, David Smashfucker the Iron Pussy attending the domestic abuse survivors group using their womanhood protections being quite funny.
Eh. I'd trust your opinion if you'd've talked with the lobbyists as much I have in the streets. They were everywhere here.
Don't you live in New Zealand?
For real though. The lobbyists' position has resulted in the following:
1 ) Natal sex determines whether someone can receive the "woman" protected characteristic.
2 ) Trans men have female natal sex.
3 ) Trans men have the "woman" protected characteristic.
4 ) David Smashfucker is a trans man.
5 ) David Smashfucker has the "woman" protected characteristic.
6 ) If you have the "woman" protected characteristic, you are entitled to attend women's spaces.
7 ) Domestic abuse survivors groups are women's spaces.
8 ) David Smashfucker is entitled to attend domestic abuse survivors groups.
I mean David Smashfucker is in all likelihood a normal trans man, because it's not like trans men are criminals or risks or whatever, it's just that a group of people who are nervous around men are then going to be in a group therapy session with a slab of MMA practicing beef with a beard.
Which is absolutely not what they wanted. They totally forgot trans men existed.
David Smashfucker is a female. No one is afraid of David Smashfucker. Buck Angel is a good example of why that doesn't hit home for me. I very much like your style though LOL
Well if you're willing to bite the bullet of allowing the buffet of masculinity that is Buck Angel into a space where people are terrified of men there isn't much I can say.
Quoting AmadeusD
I imagine that's where we disagree. Every single lobbyist I spoke with in the street - on their stalls - is principally concerned about women's perceived safety. They don't want trans women in women's prisons because they see trans women as latent rapists and predators - and so they'll put trans men in women's prisons, despite the fact they're putting someone they allegedly see as a woman in with a bunch of criminals and predators. They don't want trans women in women's toilets - so David Smashfucker will emerge from the ladies toilets cubicles.
The only sensible explanation is that they'd be afraid of David Smashfucker for the same reason as they'd be afraid of any man in these spaces. Because they count socially as a man, and appear as one.
There was a world where "trans woman" was a distinct protected characteristic from "woman" and the original equalities legislation was rewritten sensibly with this in mind. We don't live in that world.
The GRC perspective that Scottish courts advocated was an excellent middle ground - it isn't a subjective gender identity, you really need to put in work to get that GRC. The lobbyists had no idea how tough it was to get a GRC and also forgot trans men existed.
That is likely where we disagree..
Quoting fdrake
I can't quite make sense of this?
They see trans women as male (which they are). All males are seen as latent predators by most females, because of the behaviour of males in aggregate.
Trans men in women's prisons means there are no predators there (in terms of the 'perception'). They are all female??? The relevant factor for danger, is being male. Nothing else. If you're male, your potential danger is magnitudes higher than if you're female and that goes for any identity you like.
So Maybe i'm missing what your complaint there is?
Quoting fdrake
This again just makes no sense. Nothing in the above leads to this (either of our versions). I would also suggest something like "the only sensible explanation" is not hte way to go on this.
Quoting fdrake
Disagree, but that's now getting into legal argument territory and I left work three hours ago lol.
Quoting fdrake
No, they knew all of this, and took it all into account. Females aren't hte problem, so trans men are relevant to protections for women(in their terms, that is). Its tough to get a GRC, but that doesn't do anything for the arguments.
One note for full disclosure: In New Zealand you can apply to have you birth certificate changed to reflect your 'chosen sex'. This is so far beyond reasonable it is the kind of thing I wouldn't mind females rising up and causing a ruckus about in such a way that it makes it impossible to actually do safely.
It is a lie. That this is the case has somewhat coloured my views on the legal aspects of trans/non-binary. I do not think either category should be considered a legal category. They are social categories that you are free to ask politely for people to adhere to, for your benefit. I usually do/would.
You believe that these lobbyists see Buck Angel as a woman?
Imagine you're in a woman's prison and Buck Angel walks into the showers. A musclebound, steroid using, bodybuilder with a sixpack and thick bodyfur walks into womens' collective showers... The lobbyists absolutely short circuit when you ask them about trans men. They just haven't thought about it.
Similarly imagine you're in a bloke's prison and Remy Lacroix walks into the showers. Someone with tits walks into the bloke's showers.
Are you concerned that trans men are going to rape women? Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? Unaided penetrative intercourse doesn't work so well with a phalloplasty, and I'm not sure why erectile prosthetics would be allowed in a women's prison.
Quoting fdrake
You're equivocating between rape and abuse. If we are concerned about rape, then the ruling is quite logical. If we are concerned about abuse (i.e. strength differentials), then the ruling is beneficial but imperfect (as all law is, by the way).
Logically, the abuse matter is tricky because a trans man or trans woman who has received hormone treatment will possess a strength somewhere between that of the average man and woman, and therefore they introduce a new (and varied) strength differential. For example, the trans man will be stronger than women but weaker than men, and therefore there is a potential for abuse in both women's and men's prisons.
On balance, though, the ruling is great. That you've found an exception to the rule in no way proves that the ruling is flawed. All rules and law have exceptions.
(And if we are concerned with neither rape nor abuse, but merely "perceptions," then we have created a world with infinite potential complaints where realism and pragmatism do not even exist.)
Even then there are plenty of symptoms that render some people congenitally unable to produce any gametes and thus...
Those who feel threatened by the last bit are those who throw their arms up in declaration "there can only be two!" like some twisted version of Highlander. While there are those whose radars don't even pick up because they don't use science in a way to deny the lives of others.
Who cares about the binary of sex anyway in the discussion about gender?
Duh, women can rape women.
Let's just pretend that this is a reasonable claim for the sake of argument. What then is the position? That women can rape women, men can rape men, men can rape women, and women can rape men, and therefore as far as rape is concerned, all prisons should be co-ed? That separating the sexes has no effect on the issue of rape?
This is a good example of why the position is so insane.
But in your favor, that statistic alone goes miles... it shows you that males in a position of power will abuse that power to rape women more frequently. At a much higher ratio than women on women. And a trans male to female may feel that way, but also so too could female to male who haven't even had a phalloplasty. What if they're much stronger and the what not via transitioning on gear and working out?
No. I'd be more concerned about the trans man in the woman's prison, honestly. Women's prisons are brutal for assault.
Quoting Leontiskos
Legal status in Scotland no, they can't. It's "just" sexual assault {even if it's penetration} so long as a dick isn't involved. No dick, not legal rape here. Women have absolutely no trouble sexually assaulting each other in prison. The idea that penetrative sexual assault ought be considered a lesser crime than rape is also a bit specious, but I don't know if you were actually saying that.
Quoting Leontiskos
The issue has never been about the reality of rape nor abuse, as the lobbyists never gave a damn. They are instead entirely concerned with perceived personal safety of a small group of non-trans women. A tiny group of lobbyists who for some reason feel uniquely threatened by, in their view, effeminate men mainlining oestrogen who often wear dresses. And in contravention to robust estimates of real risks. The lobbyists don't give a damn about the safety of trans women or men in equal access or gendered spaces.
Instead they're weaponising the trope of women's unique vulnerability in order to express disgust for a tiny minority group.
The GRC was already an excellent screen for "foul play" for all practical purposes.
On the view of those of us who are far removed, it looks to be good law. Even supposing the motives are bad, that doesn't make it a bad law. Is there a substantial objection to the law, one that goes beyond imputing bad motives?
I think your substantial conclusion is something like, "This will harm trans men or trans women or both." From the perspective of law and politics, "This will cause harm," is not a sufficient justification. The question is whether it will cause more harm than the alternative. My sense is that it won't, at all.
Quoting fdrake
If you put a criminal, biological man in a women's prison you put all of the women in danger. You presumably want to favor a tiny minority of criminals because you think minorities are good, and need to be protected. But to favor a tiny minority of criminals at the expense of the vast majority of criminals (particularly in women's prisons) is bad law. It is much more harmful to put a tiny minority of biological men in women's prisons than to put that tiny minority of biological men in men's prisons. The commonsensical argument here is pretty straightforward.
The response of someone in your position is something like, "These are real trans women. They aren't just pretending to be trans women." The fact of the matter is that if a male criminal with a history of sexual abuse can get into a women's prison by merely claiming that he identifies as a woman, he will. We are talking about criminals, not ordinary people, after all. I don't see any good reason to endanger all of the natural women in women's prisons. If we have to choose between endangering the 99% or the 1%, we choose the 1%. That's eminently rational.
(And sure, women's prisons can be vicious. Nevertheless, strength differential is still enormously important.)
I'm talking about two things at once, there's the ruling, and there's why the lobbyists wanted it. The lobbyists wanted it for the reasons I've stated. I've almost no interest in talking about the letter of the ruling, other than the ways in which it still catastrophically fails the lobbyist's intentions.
Quoting Leontiskos
Why? Surely you need to demonstrate more danger than would be expected from a typical inmate in order to make this case?
Quoting Leontiskos
No. I think the moral panic surrounding trans people in gendered spaces is totally nuts and that they don't amplify the risks meaningfully if they're allowed in their preferred gender spaces especially if they've received a GRC. That's mostly what this ruling was about, honestly. What a GRC does.
Scotland passed a bill that let trans people count as their preferred gender if they went through a lengthy and robust assessment process, which was then vetoed. This ruling made that irrelevant.
Quoting Leontiskos
They're sexually assaulting each other just fine in there without trans womens' help. And more than men do to each other in men's prisons. If anything we should be afraid that the poor trans woman is being put in with such vicious, criminal, creatures. But we won't, because we see women as weak and in need of protection.
Hmm, okay.
Quoting fdrake
Well, why do you think we have separate men's and women's prisons in the first place. Is it for the safety of the men? The idea that I need to demonstrate that it is a bad idea to house criminal, biological men with women is a bit strange. Surely you recognize the longstanding rationale for separating men's prisons from women's prisons?
Quoting fdrake
Okay. I'm not up to date on the legal ins and outs of the GRC in Scotland, so I am not competent to comment on such a thing.
Quoting fdrake
Women are physically weaker than men, and in need of protection. That's why Western society has been taking progressive steps to protect women for at least the last 500 years. Do you disagree that women are physically weaker than men? I can understand political positions, but when your political position causes you to contradict some of the most well-known biological facts the political position becomes untenable.
Difference in average physical strength is much different from factors that influence prevalence of sexual assault in prisons innit. If we want to think about major risk factors for rape of women "out in the wild", we should think of marriage {and fatherhood} paradigmatically. As my gran says, "it's your bloody husband you've got to watch out for!"
You've, "Swallowed the camel and strained the gnat," to quote a phrase.
Yes. Though, i don't pretend that there aren't any who find that difficult. I suppose also Buck's rather intense support for those women has helped. Perhaps I'm not adequately taking that into account.
Quoting fdrake
That is certainly not my experience. They aren't a threat, so there's not much to say. That's the line I get, repeatedly, over many years. If it has been yours, fair enough. There are stupid people in every group..
Yeah, Remy is male. I'm not sure which side you're suggesting is a problem (their safety, her safety) but I still don't see the issue. Male. The risks in prison exist for merely short men, so I don't see this as special. Quoting Leontiskos
*some. Which is the case intragroup too. It's the obvious things like bone mass that make this a non-issue. Hormone treatment doens't adequately change these things.
Oh. It just acts as more of a risk than physical strength differences with strangers, for sexual assault. The person in your life most likely to sexually assault you is always your partner. Just don't get married.
I'm being facetious. You would need to establish that trans people pose unique risks in prisons. When people look at the data, it doesn't look like that at all. All that's left is the perception that Man Strong Rapist Woman Weak Raped, and it works like a thought terminating cliche.
Quoting Leontiskos
Which, to mirror the rudeness, you've demonstrated admirably.
Then let's separate husbands and wives too. So what? You're not being rational. What you are engaged in is a red herring.
Quoting fdrake
Again, you seem convinced that women are not physically weaker than men, and I can't think of a more unintelligent position for someone to hold. The rhetoric doesn't help your position.
I am reminded of Nellie Bowles' quip:
Quoting Nellie Bowles in response to John Oliver
This is why no one takes your position seriously, and why public opinion is now headed in an immensely more rational direction.
It would be nice if you would demonstrate how the difference in physical strength between men and women makes trans women more likely to commit acts of sexual assault if they were imprisoned with cis women. You need to show the implication.
The broader context also doesn't have precedence for you to appeal to - difference in physical strength between someone who may be a perp of sexual assault and their victim is neither necessary nor sufficient for the attempt.
Quoting Leontiskos
Women on average are physically weaker than men, I just don't see how you've demonstrated how that fact engenders that trans women should be excluded from women's prisons. What about women who are elite powerlifters? Should they be excluded from women's prisons on the basis that they're way stronger than most men.
The burden of proof you are attempting to push is wild, in my opinion. You may as well go to a women's shelter and say, "You need to demonstrate how the difference in physical strength between men and women makes men more likely to create problems in your shelter. You need to show the implication. We just don't have enough data on men in women's shelters to know if there is any danger. If you can't demonstrate the implication, then we're going to start bringing men into this women's shelter. Because my a priori beliefs that men will not cause problems in a women's shelter are stronger than your a priori beliefs that men will cause problems in a women's shelter."
If you think that placing biological men who are criminals into an all-woman environment will not endanger the women, then you are the one who has to demonstrate that the men pose no special risk. Our whole prison system which separates men and women is premised on the obvious fact that there is a special risk. You are the one with the burden of proof, and it isn't even close.
Quoting fdrake
Great argument, fdrake. "What about women who are elite powerlifters?" This is painful, dude. I already pointed to the problems where you take an exception and try to use it to establish a rule.
(Note that a woman who is an elite powerlifter will receive special attention from a prison, for the exact same reason that men and women are separate.)
Spot on.
Hence the very denial of the existence of transgender folk that impedes the understanding of the so many here. It's "beyond the pale"; it is incomprehensible and so is categorically denied.
And yet there are trans folk.
They won't be excluded on the basis of their strength alone. What remains?
Quoting Leontiskos
Wrong demographic innit.
The relevant comparison is trans women in women's prisons, not men generically in women's prisons. Even if you wanted to say that trans women were men, as you seem to, that's the relevant risk comparison! When people actually look at that risk comparison, trans women don't behave like men are stipulated to at all.
Women who sexually assault women still go to women's prisons for god's sake. Even women who are sexual predators go to women's prisons.
Legislation that wants to send people to prisons based entirely on their natal sex for the protection of women then sends women {trans men} to serve sentences in buildings full of rapists. It's utter hypocrisy. You send a woman who passes as a man {how you see it} to a building with loads of women with dubious understandings of consent who might be attracted to her, who's way more likely to be the victim of sexual assault because she's a trans man. And she's a woman {according to how you see it}.
Yeah I could see someone really double-downing on the idea that people of male natal sex are inherently threatening in response to this. Seems an ally of various gender related essentialisms, not my cup of tea.
I can certainly imagine someone who looks at a trans man and sees someone who isn't a risk because they're seeing a woman, but I imagine they're still taking the precautions they take with men if they interact with Buck Angel.
Which is the thing I'm referring to, for all practical purposes in social life people who think trans X aren't X treat nevertheless treat trans X as X whenever the trans X person passes as X. That includes perceived sense of safety.
Though there's a particular kind of disgust and revulsion that trans peeps are subject to, trans women aren't just men {allegedly}, and thus latent predators... they're latent predators wearing camouflage! They're sneaking up on you like they're a woman!
I do trust that the people you've spoken with have an intellectual commitment to treating trans men as women and trans women as men, but I'd put money on those people having revealed preferences to treat trans women as women and trans men as men in most circumstances.
Except when the women's safety and sanctity tropes are in play.
My impression is that the majority of the people who really support the lobby are thinking with their gut, as everything about trans existence violates taboos, much like homosexuality used to.
The specific taboo with trans women is... they're men... and men are latent predators... so we've got men camouflaged as women... lying on forms to get access to women... who they'll certainly rape with their superior muscles. Which, broadly, is something bad feminists and conservatives can agree on, man bad dangerous woman weak protect.
"Woman" should still be a protected characteristic, it's just that this moral panic is specifically about weaponising women's victimhood, and especially what remains of the chastity and despoilment norms from centuries ago. It's old shit the culture's vomiting up. It's a lot like lactose intolerant people eating a shitload of icecream, honestly. Culture loves chicks with dicks and hates trans people at the same time.
There is one justification I can think of for considering it to be so, at least when the victim is a woman, given that rape (defined as penile penetration) women may lead to unwanted pregnancy.
No threat - it's just wrongQuoting fdrake
I agree. But Leon is on the right track - this is patent. The unique risk is the clear, and usually not-abated differential in strength and tendency to abuse females. Females don't have that tendency.
Quoting fdrake
Fully 4 times more likely to be in prison for a sex crime in the UK vs the non-trans MALE population. If this isn't a screaming, screeching, wildly intense red flag for you... what would be? There's also all this:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/25/trans-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-raping-two-women-remanded-in-female-prison-scotland
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/man-posing-as-transgender-woman-raped-female-prisoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/https://news.wttw.com/2020/02/19/lawsuit-female-prisoner-says-she-was-raped-transgender-inmate
https://nypost.com/2024/12/29/us-news/transgender-inmate-sexually-assaulted-cellmate-at-womens-prison-suit/
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/112432880/transgender-prisoner-investigated-for-sexual-assault-behind-bars
https://www.lawsociety.ie/gazette/top-stories/2021/12-december/ex-inmate-gives-account-of-sex-assault-by-trans-prisoner
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/law/article/keep-trans-offenders-like-me-out-of-womens-prisons-says-karen-white-0qqdg5tsm - perhaps the most telling.
Quoting fdrake
Not if you realise you've got the terms wrong. It protects females. Get that right.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ (more of an interest piece).
Quoting fdrake
It is a fact of life. Men are entirely reasonably seen as potential abusers, because almost all abuse is carried out by men (read: males, whether transwomen or not). I have to say, if it's not your cup of tea to acknowledge the inherent risk females undergo to be around males - just..what the fuck is going on up in that noggin LOL.
Quoting fdrake
This comes across as, "I literally do not care about women" talk. It's probably worth noting that it is not mutually exclusive to understand and respect a trans identity and still not want policy to violate the male/female demarcation. They exist together in millions (perhaps billions) of people. So using Banno's logic, we're all good lol.
Quoting fdrake
I can understand this position, but I cannot understand thinking anything more than "perhaps this might be the case for some small number of people". Most people see a woman simpliciter - the same way you'd see a woman in the 80s pop scene as a woman (or David Bowie as a man). It is, in some significant sense, costume (as it is with all others! Not a trans thing) and we can't be in other's heads. We have different experiences of what the activists say on either side, so I can't in good conscience say one way or the other on that. Just that my experience is very much counter to your assumption.
Quoting fdrake
Vehemently disagreed. Often, people silence themselves for fear of the social repercussions as a result of the utterly abysmal response from TRAs to any criticism whatsoever. And then there's the actual assault/intimidation/inappropriate behaviour trans women do engage in (plenty of examples, don't want to put more links i here except this one ) so it is not unreasonable, at all, for a female to say "Fuck no" to males in their spaces, regardless of their identification. I certainly don't want a female in my spaces of that type, regardless of how they look. I just don't take on a risk the way a female does in the reverse scenario.
Quoting fdrake
Fixed (im jesting that it's 'fixed' - that's just my view and experience). But then, generally only happens to trans women. Because they are male. It is the male doing all the lifting - not the trans. That part is almost irrelevant until you look at the stats and realise that trans women are vastly more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males. I do not think it is "you're in camouflage" and rather "It doesn't matter what you're wearing. You are male. Stay out". I think that's entirely fair and I think point-blank period MALES trying to tell females what they can and cannot allow in their spaces is utterly reprehensible and just another form of misogynistic horseshit we've been battling for millennia.
As an aside, trans women "pass" extremely rarely. Most claiming that they pass are obviously lying. The ones I am friends with joke about this obvious obstacle to the goal often.
Quoting fdrake
I want to throw out some ideas to complicate the discussion a bit. One could argue that the idea of men as latent predators has less to do with physiological expressions of male sex chromosomes, such as height and strength, than it does with psychological-behavioral characteristics that supposedly distinguish men from women. For instance, according to Google AI, men comprise about 93.2% of the U.S. prison population, while women make up around 6.8%. Some argue that sex-based differences in brain structure explain this wide gap. As the argument goes, males are biologically more prone to aggression, impulsivity and violence than females. We can add to those who put forth this argument some gender researchers who propose that many who identity as gay and lesbian are situated at intermediate points on the masculine-feminine biological spectrum, and many who identify as trans may have brain physiology opposite to their chromosomal sex.
Thus, many gay men may have less masculine and more feminine behavioral traits than typical straight men. And many lesbians may have more masculine traits than typical straight females. Do incarceration rates provide any evidence supporting this hypothesis? Not for gay men, but the statistics concerning incarcerated self-identifying lesbians are intriguing. Approximately one-third of incarcerated women in the US identify as lesbian or bisexual, whereas only 3.4% of the general female population identify as lesbian. Those who adhere to a biological explanation of gender-based behaviors will argue that lesbians as a statistical whole have more masculine traits than the straight female population, including aggressiveness, impulsivity and violence, and this explains their significant over-representation in prisons.
The same reasoning would suggest that as a whole, trans women may have been born with less of the anti-social male-correlated biological traits than straight men, and thus are less of a potential threat to women than the typical straight male.
I wanted to throw these ideas out there, knowing that they can easily be taken apart from many directions, biological as well as social.
Quoting fdrake
They will receive special attention on the basis of their strength alone, actually.
Quoting Leontiskos
Quoting fdrake
You've simply misrepresented what I've said. I spoke specifically about biological men.
Quoting fdrake
Now try to form a valid argument out of that claim.
Quoting fdrake
Again, you don't seem to have any real proposals. I mean, are you proposing that trans men should be sent to men's prisons? As I said:
Quoting Leontiskos
The rational position is that biological men should not be incarcerated with women (and biological men should not compete in women's sports). That leaves the question about trans men open. You can make an argument that they should be sent to men's prisons if you like. I don't think we need to physically protect men from biological women at the societal level of incarceration. The main problem I see with that is in prison, which seems a bad option no matter where we stand.
Great points. :up:
We have fundamental societal reasons for separating males from females. The reasons hold whether those males have long hair, or have an earring, or identify as a woman. The reasons are based on biology, not mental beliefs.
@fdrake's concern is generalizable: "What if there is something about someone that makes them unpopular in prison?" The answer is that something should be done to protect them, within reasonable limits. It doesn't matter whether it is their long hair, their earring, or their mental identification that makes them unpopular.
Trans women are trans women.
Women are women.
The problem arises in basic human interactions. If someone wishes to be referred to and thought of by others as a woman or man it is out of there hands. Familiarity will change people's perspective more than vitriol.
Honestly I cannot recall a time when I called said 'Hey woman!' or 'Hey man!'. I cannot fathom why anyone has any real issue calling someone by he or she as a trans man or trans woman other than if they felt they were being ridiculed or duped for some reason.
Providing exceptions is far less uncomfortable, and far less controversial. I think. But your general premise is spot on.
I am referring to an instance of someone raised in a black family with all the cultural background involved and worked for a charity serving black people. I believe they were then discovered to be 'white' and outrage ensued.
These things can be more complicated that it first seems. It is a bit like saying we are all human. Such definitions only serve a use within a certain domain.
I am assuming this is back on the forums due to the ruling in the UK? Or is it something else? The new ruling is perfectly fine btw. It is for legal reasons. It is absolutely not about discriminating against trans men and women. Some will always look for offence where there is none intended.
It wasn't intended that way. I think it's quite useful to remember that the inmates of women's prisons are awful to each other often, and that includes sexual assault. Those places are not hotbeds of women's rights.
The logic for excluding trans women from women's prisons also doesn't really work conditionally either, if all that matters were odds, women who are sex offenders against women should also be excluded from women's prisons. And that's obviously not seen as the case. If people treated that seriously you'd yeet anyone who committed acts of sexual victimisation of women, in women's prisons, out of them for women's protections. But no, as you're saying, it's uniquely bad when a man does it and allegedly needs special protections.
Quoting AmadeusD
Those are a few instances of it. You can find similar instances regarding lesbianism and sexual assault in prison, or gay men in male prisons. Can you show me what the source you have for being "four times more likely" is? The last time I looked at this crap there was like 1 paper which even did this comparison with real data, the newspapers picked it up with a misinterpretation, then the paper's author had to go on the record to say "no, in fact there was no evidence in the paper that trans women are uniquely risky".
That paper, "The Swedish Paper" is the one the UK Parliament used {this one } as its primary source for the legislature.
Here is the author going on record showing their frustration with how much it gets misrepresented.
Yeah it's definitely an argument. "May lead to unwanted pregnancy" needs massaging though - man has vasectomy and it doesn't lead to it, infertile victim and it can't. I believe they should be treated with the same moral weight. It also provides an exemption for bumming, that'd have to go back into the sexual assault category when relevant.
Though I suppose you could say "it's worse because if it was penetrative vaginal sex involving a fertile man and a fertile woman it could lead to pregnancy", which kind of lays bare the social landscape regarding it too. Rape's {man raping woman} is uniquely bad because it's associated with a violation of womanhood and not just personhood and autonomy.
It's a fun thing to think about.
Quoting Joshs
We could talk about this in a different thread, perceived threat vs real threat. It's also extremely spicy.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah I agree, you just have to think about why they're doing that. They're doing that because they feel the trans woman is a man and is thus more of a risk, which they can be incorrect about if they are in fact a woman or are not more of a risk. A potential discussion of perceived safety vs real risk would also be interesting!
Also yeah. It relates to your reference to passing as well, you don't have to think about it at all if a trans person passes. I've made plenty of slips with trans people who don't look sufficiently like I expect their gender to look. If I've not spent much time with them anyway.
It's the UK prison stats. This isn't as good, but another source
Trans women:
Total Pop: 48,000 est.
In prison: 0.27%
For sex crime: 0.16%
Non trans males:
Total Pop: 32,900,000 est.
In prison: 68,548 =0.21%
For sex crime: 12,611 =0.04%
% of Prison pop: 18.4%
NB: unfortunately, this is something I had in a draft email. my work serve wont let me open the link to add the raw numbers for trans women. Sorry, as that's absolutely fucking crucial LOL. I take it you can look at those numbers and verify though.
I should also note, looking at this, I calibrate a full 50% for sex crimes which are to do with SW and the like. It is still then 100% higher among trans women.
Quoting fdrake
Yeah, i definitely assumed not, to be clear. Quoting fdrake
No. The odds are ever in the females favour for sexual assault. This is true in and out of prison. This doesn't ignore your point. If women are already being assaulted by females then absolutely fuck no to introducing males who are more likely to assault, and are more likely to cause lasting damage or to kill. These are not controversial facets of male-ness. You are not wrong, but you are not concluding something reasonable, imo.
Quoting fdrake
Because that isn't the fucking claim. They are at least as risky as non-trans men which the Swedish paper clearly shows, in no uncertain terms. I have relied on other sources for the unique risk transwomen present.
Have you read the paper? This is patently untrue and clear attempt to avoid the vitriol of trans activists who routinely harass and attempt to 'cancel' anyone saying anything they don't like in the lit
Another (damningly, the school was pinged for more than half a million pounds for not protecting Kathleen.
Another which went the same way.
There is a very, very good reason to do what those authors did. It doesn't change what's in the paper, and it doesn't change the very real fact that male are at a higher propensity for violence, including sexual violence. I'm not sure how much Twitter you've seen either, but www.terfisaslur.com is a nice little capsule of what goes on there, and routinely.
Given that plenty of trans figures (Blaire White, Debbie Hayton, Buck Angel, Brandy Nitt and a few others, at the least given this is off-top) agree with what I'm saying, and think the position put forward on the other side is the specific reason the trans community faces backlash that might otherwise be considered unreasonable (i exclude here actual bigotry, on my own terms). I don't know that that's true, but if the community itself, in some significant proportion notices this (my personal trans friends do, also) then it cannot be hte case that this is some inarguable situation where we have to just do as were told (which is the postion).
I don't have to call anyone anything they demand of me. Simple. It might be 'decent'. but its not required and there should never be policies to that effect.
Similarly, there should never, ever be policies which allow males to override the wishes of females.
Quoting fdrake
I have to assume this applies to the second potential statement there, about saying 'fuck no'.
They're saying it because they are male. Nothing else. They do not need to justify that further.
I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at here. Trans people, for hte most part, do not pass. This is largely because humans are 99% accurate at predicted sex from facial features alone. Trans people wanting to pass (if not unusually trans in their phenotype already) is an unfortunately cruel aspiration. Similar to actually changing sex. Just, isn't gonna happen basically (though, i note exceptions to the first whereas the second admits of zero).
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/04/30/uks-only-transgender-judge-plans-to-take-government-to-echr-over-biological-sex-ruling Have just seen this.
"This makes life impossible for people like me" is perhaps the most self-demeaning, and self-defeating statement i've heard from a trans person.
Yes. That's the author of the paper you're disagreeing with, I believe. Dhjene is denouncing the conclusions about trans criminality people are making using her work. Dr Dhjene, I believe, would not agree with the interpretation of her paper in the UK parliament document you sent me. This is why I quoted her about it.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yeah you can have a reasonable discussion about it using the statistics, and I'm glad you've brought them up. Most people are not, however, doing that. There is a world of difference between
1 ) Talking about trans women's rates of sex offence using data.
2 ) Construing trans women as latent rapists on the basis of their {alleged} manhood.
I have the time of day for the former, the latter can suck a bag of dicks, believing something in the manner of ( 2 ) and motte-baileying back to ( 1 ) can suck a larger bag of dicks. It isn't just about being factually correct, people can believe all this stuff in the wrong way. I am not saying you're doing this specifically. I'm bringing the calcified prejudices I usually bring to this discussion's terrain, where knee jerk reactionary crap suffices.
I shall look at your other numbers later.
Quoting AmadeusD
People can feel unsafe for whatever reason, it can sometimes be a bad reason. Excluding people from spaces because of personal discomfort, or feelings of unsafety, can also work as a vector of discrimination.
Quoting AmadeusD
Yes. This could've been a world where people talked about this in a nice way, without prejudice or knee jerk castigation. We don't live in that one. Instead we live in one where the issue is steeped in such a moral panic that talking about it is joining a circular firing line, in which everyone thinks everyone else is a reactionary blowhard centralising a clear cut issue which we should've stopped speaking about ages ago.
Honestly it will be nice when the trans community stops being treated like a global tennis ball for political signalling. Hopefully that comes with easy access and well targeted healthcare as well as humane treatment+protections in gendered places like prisons.
I'm sure most people like to believe they're good people. That number may fluctuate if a ruling government authority declares goodness to be the necessity for not being executed, for example. Or, in lighter terms, if it just becomes the "cool" and "trendy" thing to do or be.
I'm not particularly trying to conclude something reasonable. If my interlocutor told me "anyone who commits sexual offences against women doesn't belong in women's prisons", I'd need to ask them "what about the women in the prisons who commit sexual offences against their fellow inmates?", and they do that quite a lot.
I think what this shows is that the particular urgency people feel regarding trans women in women's prisons isn't just about sexual assault, there's a special sauce of manhood that people care about. If women are horrible to each other it's fair game, but if one {alleged} man is horrible to them it's a cause for uproar.
I'm not saying any of that is okay, by the by, only highlighting an asymmetry in the urgency people talk about these problems with. If it was as clear cut as "get sex offenders out of women's prisons", or "get people who sexual assault out of women's prisons", it shouldn't even matter if those offenders - or people - are women.
You seem emotionally invested in casting your opposition in a bad light, which is why your construal of the lobbyists lacks prima facie credibility. The more charitable and reasonable alternative to (1) is to recognize the strength differential between males and females, and to recognize that this strength differential accounts for the reason society separates incarcerated males and incarcerated females in the first place. That's the elephant in the room for your reasoning: Why are incarcerated males and females separated at all? The fact that this still remains the elephant in the room is a rather significant problem. Presumably to grant the elephant recognition would be to lose a lot of motivation for the negative construals.
At the very least, the idea that men are generally more physically dangerous to women than women are (given the strength differential), is not irrational. If you put two mammals in a room, the potential for significant harm rises as the strength differential increases. Criminality would seem to exacerbate this dynamic.
And maybe an interesting question is this: for the sake of argument, if a group of people come to a true conclusion via invalid reasoning, should we accept or oppose the conclusion? Probably we want to accept the conclusion while opposing the reasoning. But in this case it's not clear why invalid reasoning from the relatively small group of lobbyists should invalidate a true conclusion (about prisons) for the entire population.
Yep but that flies in the face of both the empirical evidence, and the work in that paper. You should read it throroughly (I have, but its been some time). The Dutch Protocol and surrounding work is also an interesting tidbit in this area..
Quoting fdrake
Yes, but they are approaching two different aspects of justification: On the one hand, here's the actual data (this is something, as a Male, i feel required to provide in lieu of talking for females) - on the other, there is hte fact that males, in aggregate cause almost the entirety of social harm to females. So, lets not allow males into intimate, close-quarter spaces particularly where nudity is required in several respects... I think both are totally legitimate, if different types of justification which I fully accept.
Quoting fdrake
This reads as "Females concerned for their safety based on millennia of data, and their collective lived experiences can suck a bag of dicks"
I assume that's not your intention, based the previous exchange around the same thing - but I find it very, very hard to see a justification for dismissing female concerns based on millennia of data and lived experience as anything but "I don't take it seriously" or some such.. Could you be a bit more specific about what's wrong with that? I don't think a male has any standing to make such dismissals..
Quoting fdrake
Because they are male. Nothing else. One need not be uncomfortable with males in their spaces to know that the propensity for violence and sexual assault comes with the males, regardless. Males are almost entirely beholden to this underlying potential for force in most situations (albeit, it becomes subconscious after a time). Why would females, the literally weaker sex, not need specific protection from same? I agree it can work as a vector for discrimination. Discrimination is not bad. Arbitrary discrimination is. We discriminate constantly.
Quoting fdrake
Cannot argue with this... My epxerience just says one side is vitriolic, tends toward violence and protects criminals and the other doesn't (in this one specific context). Conceptual example being that pro-trans protesting and agitation tends toward chaos and violence, from what I've seen. The anti(lets say) crowd doesn't, until confronted by the former. The former also seeks confrontation (at events, lectures, clubs etc..) and seeks to violate the rights of those with whom they disagree. This is why the ruling is helpful (these are not supposed to be arguments just reports).
Quoting fdrake
Convert this to sports:
If a female boxed breaks the jaw of a female boxer, alright, that's part of the 'waiver' aspect of getting into the ring.
If a male does it (on the proviso they are competing in a female category), none of that applies to the female whos jaw was broken and I defy anyone with a shred of decency to pretend that is fair game.
The exact same logic applies to sexual assault. If you're in prison with females, and you're female, that comes with the territory (as a risk, anyway). Being raped by a male does not.
I can only return to the point that I do not see what you see in the protests of that side of the argument. If i did, I would definitely agree with you. I acknowledge a small, loud pocket of them do this - but then a small, loud pocket of trans women literally thikn they are better than biological women (superior beings, better women, whatever) and represent "womanhood" more than biological women, and suffer more htan biological women for being women. Utter nonsense, so I get the concern there in the reverse position.
I often see this as well-poisoning by association. I don't paint all TRAs in the light of terfisaslur. But they exist and are worth mentioning.
I'm not quite sure what you meant by this. I am sure there are bad actors on both sides. I'm just not convinced that "bad acting" is a good basis for a philosophy thread in the Humanities and Social Sciences section. I can understand if @fdrake is frustrated by bad actors, but I don't think that frustration translates into rationale for policy positions. And maybe fdrake recognizes this when he says, "I'm not particularly trying to conclude something reasonable."
Quoting AmadeusD
:up:
www.terfisaslur.com - I don't think ever TRA is this type of TRA, but they are worth mentioning.
And the reason for this is exactly what you've outlined in your post :)
Okay, gotcha. :up:
Yeah, I have a feminist friend who has dealt with that sort of thing. She is "old school" in that she gravitates towards Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, but those philosophies are heretical in the more aggressive parts of the trans community.
Yeah. It's the difference between being cautious around men for good reasons and assuming that men are latent rapists, the former's something behavioural and can {and usually is} done without prejudice, the latter treats men as if they are always on the verge of boiling over into rape as if it's an essential facet of masculinity, just waiting to get out.
In the discussion, the latter move also calls trans women men. I know you believe that's true, it's just not a neutral move in this space of ideas. I want to distinguish that from a claim like "trans women have a male pattern of offending", which you could believe even if you believed trans women were women.
The kind of discussion people are having regarding trans women in women's prisons - which is currently rare in the UK anyway - responds to trans women as if they are latent rapists on the basis that they are men.
Someone who goes into the discussion believing that men are latent rapists will then find it very difficult to hear "trans women are women and should thus be allowed in women's spaces", since it will sound to them like "latent rapists should be put in women's spaces".
It roughly comes down to whether you're, in a manner of speaking, calling rape an aspect of every man's personality. Like men are all chomping at the bit to commit sex crimes.
Distinguish that from the claim that the majority of sex crimes committed against women are done by men, which is true. You can just believe that without doing a Dworkin and saying penis = rape.
Quoting AmadeusD
Probs a difference in our experience then. The lobbyists here were calling trans folk rapists loudly in the street and handing out pamphlets to that effect. The degree of panic has caused a big spike in trans victimisation. Seeing trans women as latent rapists has real social effects.
Quoting AmadeusD
I did read it quite thoroughly. I would generally trust the author's interpretation {a scientist} of their own work over people from a think tank.
I also looked at your spreadsheets with the risk in them, they were from the Fair Play Initiative, which is a think tank - which is fine, so long as what they're saying is alright, but it gives me pause. I followed their trail of data back to their freedom of information request from the UK's Ministry of Justice {MoJ}, the MoJ had published a clarifying remark on the degree of caution that data should be interpreted with regarding trans sex offenders:
...
It also notes:
This was in 2018 by the by.
The MoJ is hesitant to conclude that the trans folk in the data are representative of trans folk's patterns of offending, why? Because in order to be inside of the published data, and count as trans by its lights, you needed to have a case conference - a big meeting, which is only ever given to prisoners serving long sentences.
Why that matters - let's say stealing a blue jelly bean gets you 1 year in jail, and stealing a red jelly bean gets you 2 years in jail. Assume for the sake of argument that rabbits and cows steal jelly beans at equal rates. But sometimes cows like to wear rabbit costumes, and have them at home. In order to find out which cows have rabbit costumes at home, they get a review on the second year of their prison sentence. If they're revealed as being cows wearing rabbit costumes, they'll be recorded as such. Which would mean that any cow wearing a rabbit costume which was recorded would have been in the jail for over 1 year, which meant they could never have stolen a blue jelly bean.
You could look at this and say that cows wearing rabbit costumes have a massively inflated rate of red jelly bean theft, it's 100%! Or you can look at it and say "what about all the cows that just stole blue jelly beans?" and "the high odds of being a cow in a rabbit costume stealing red vs stealing blue is explained more by sampling in the data than anything about being a cow wearing a rabbit costume".
I hope the analogy is sufficiently on the nose that I don't need to substitute things into it.
As is usual with this terrain, lots of issues get agglomerated together - whether the ruling on the GRC and the legal status of trans folks is vindicated will be a separate issue from prison mangement policies. Which, as the MoJ clarified, already had provisions for housing particularly dangerous sex offenders of women in men's prisons. If that was the worry, it was already policy.
So what was the purpose of the bill, if we need to talk about it in terms of trans women in prisons?
If you choose to use the words "man" and "woman" to refer to the general biological dichotomy found in humans, then fine. If you choose to the use the words to refer to some general psychological or social dichotomy, then fine. It simply doesn't matter.
The pertinent question is: should bathrooms, sports teams, prisons, etc. be divided by biological sex, by gender identity, by something else, or by nothing at all?
Holy shit you're back.
If your concern is the risk of sexual assault, a relevant question is: is a transgender woman more likely to sexually assault a cisgender woman in a women's prison than a cisgender man to sexually assault a transgender woman in a men's prison?
It may be that placing transgender women in men’s prisons and transgender men in women’s prisons results in more victims of sexual assault than placing transgender women in women’s prisons and transgender men in men’s prisons.
The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated
Cis gender man Team A (assuming A is male)
Cis gender woman Team B
Transgender Man Team A or B. (If it is sports and testosterone has been used the they would be illegible for Team B) If it is a bathroom then again A or B as most members of Team A would not feel threatened by a trans man.
Transgender Woman Team A (There is significant advantages in virtually all sports from going through male puberty) Bathroom Team A. A trans woman is biologically male and biological males have been excluded from female only spaces for obvious reasons. This may chamge if society changes but we are a long way off.
Non Binary Team A or B according to their biological sex.
Not that difficult
It was non-binary with ambiguous genitalia, i.e biologically intersex.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
The general gist I get from your answer is that the divisions should be “cisgender women” and “everyone else”?
Yes. They are one sex or the other.
I took "non-binary" as someone who chooses to consider themselves neither gender.
They’re intersex
There is a reason why women have exclusive sports and have exclusive spaces. I doubt any bloke would care about changing rooms/lavatories or competing with women. Is it not obvious why there is segregation?
I’m not disputing your suggestions, just seeking clarity.
There is no person that is not male or female. There may be difficulty categorising them when they are young but they are either male or female. If there is some doubt then they should use the facilities that most reflect their appearance.
What are you confused about?
Determined by what?
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Is this also true of those who undergo sex reassignment surgery (including genitals)? Or is it only “natural” appearance that matters?
Biology.
I would say only natural but if someone has surgery and looks like a woman, who would know otherwise?
What about biology determines if someone is male or female? You don’t seem to recognise that being intersex is a biological condition.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
That’s part of why the answer to these questions isn’t so simple. If a transgender man is outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender man and a transgender woman outwardly indistinguishable from a cisgender woman then how is something like bathroom usage to be legislated and policed?
If we legislate to say that sex chromosomes determine which bathroom someone can use (ignoring for the moment the case of being intersex) then someone like Buck Angel (as he has already been mentioned) is going to face constant abuse and arrest for using the “women’s” bathroom because by outward appearance he looks like the typical biological man.
I recognise that intersex people have ambiguous genitalia, reproductive organs, chromosones etc. But they aren't neither or both sexes.
So which aspect of an intersex person’s biology determines them to be either male or female?
It is extremely simple. If someone is indistinguishable then no one will know or care. The law does not need to get involved. Just like they don't need to get involved when very masculine looking women go to the loo.
If Buck Angel is a woman then Buck Angel can go to the female facilities.
So the law ought allow for anyone to use any bathroom?
Molecular biology in the cases that are not immediately apparent.
It has worked quite well until about a decade ago. Not sure why it has become so complicated.
What would you suggest?
What molecules determine someone to be either a man or a woman?
But also your use of "immediately apparent" suggests that you think that biological sex is determined by outward appearance, and so not a concern of molecular biology at all, and brings back into question those who have undergone (complete) sex reassignment surgery.
You don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
And yet in your answer to my question above you didn't say "anyone can use bathroom A and anyone can use bathroom B".
So again you don't appear to be maintaining a consistent position.
It's quite an established field of science. I assume you already are aware or can look it up.
I think I can determine the sex of 99.999% of adults from a glance. It is only the tiny tiny minority of people you appear to be fixated on that may need more scientific basis to determine their sex.
I still haven't said it.
There is no single determinant in these cases. You seem to believe that the English words "male" and "female" refer to two clearly defined, mutually exclusive, and exhaustive biological qualities, but that simply isn't the case. Human biology is far more complex than our vocabulary accounts for.
The reality is that the English words "male" and "female" developed to name the two main phenotypes that typically distinguish humans, with other words like "hermaphrodite" used to name those with a phenotype that differs from the typical two. We later discovered that these two phenotypes are typically caused by two main sets of chromosomes (XY and XX), but also that there are more than these two sets of chromosomes, and that the relationship between sex chromosomes and phenotype is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but a phenotype that we would typically name "female").
Why do we need a legal ruling when science resolved that question long ago? Does science now require legal rulings to prove or disprove a scientific theory?
It wasn't to long before your expressed position that many on this forum threatened banning people for even questioning the idea. I felt I was walking on egg shells when I started this thread around the same time:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5097/is-gender-a-social-construct/p1
Quoting Michael
Not really, When it comes to the brain sure, but sex parts - no.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/256369
I'm not sure what you're trying to argue there, or if you've misunderstood my argument here.
I accept that "99.9% of people fall into two non-overlapping classes — male and female" as you say, but also that 0.1% of people fall outside these classes, and so are classified as neither male nor female but as intersex.
Malcolm Perry seems to be arguing that there's no such thing as being intersex; that every human is either male or female, even if it's difficult for us to determine which. And that's simply not the case. Human biology is complex, and the English nouns "male" and "female" do not fully capture this complexity.
Can intersex people pass their intersex genes down to other generations? Are there intersex genes, or male and female genes that sometimes get muddled in the process of sex - of merging TWO different sets of genes together and would qualify as a mutation, but one that does not promote the survival of the species?
If a person is born with a tail are they considered interspecies?
Yes. According to this, "infertility affects many – but not all – intersex people." Each person's sex gametes (sperm or egg) contain a complete set of that person's genes, and so can be passed on to the child.
Quoting Harry Hindu
There are X chromosomes and Y chromosomes, with particular combinations being responsible for particular phenotypes (e.g. XX typically responsible for the development of breasts and a vagina, and XY typically responsible for the development of a penis), but this relationship is not absolute (e.g. those with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome have XY chromosomes but develop breasts and a vagina), and there are more combinations than just XX and XY.
Asking what counts as a "male gene" or a "female gene" strikes me as a confused question. The words "male" and "female" had a meaning well before we understood anything about genes. I don't think that when we referred to someone as being male we were unknowingly referring to them as having a particular sequence of DNA.
All we can say is that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "male", that person has XY chromosomes and that in almost all cases where we describe someone using the adjective "female", that person has XX chromosomes. But there are plenty of people who defy this "rule", whether that be because they have a different set of chromosomes or because they have an ambiguous phenotype or because their phenotype does not correspond to the "typical" phenotype of people with their set of chromosomes.
Not that any of this has any bearing on the political discussion on whether or not and how we should divide bathrooms and sports teams and prisons. The etymology of English vocabulary is irrelevant.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No.
What is your answer to the question?
Probably unisex toilets, sports teams divided by biological sex, and prisons divided by gender identity.
For what it's worth, I largely agree with @Michael, but provide the following caveats:
Sports) Let sporting federations set their own rules in accordance with competitive standards, eg I imagine performance differences in elite olympic weightlifters based on biological sex are large enough to warrant separation, but the same might not be true for climbing. Like it's not true for chess.
Prisons) Divide by gender identity, with protections in place to minimise risk of sex offences by individuals and transphobic hate crime. Since this is what people want anyway. There are already some measures in place like this in some prisons. Trans sex offenders get the sex offender precautions.
• XX for female
• XY for male
and then
• you can be born appearing female but have low 5-alpha reductase and grow a penis at age 12
• you can be born XY male but your body is less sensitive to androgens and you appear female
• you can be born XY male and have a penis and testes and a uterus and fallopian tubes
• you can be born XY male but your Y chromosome is without the SRY gene which gives you a female body
• you can be born XX female but one of your Xs has an SRY gene which gives you a male body
• you can be born XX female and also have a Y chromosome which gives you a male body
• you can be born XX female but your adrenal gland produces less cortisol and your body develops as male
• you can be born XX female and XY chromosomes which is called chimerism
• hermaphrodites are common in some species and rare in others
• ...
Also
• Sex-determination system (Wikipedia)
Are we agreed that the prison question should be evaluated in terms of expedience and not rights? Or at the very least that criminals have forfeited many of their rights and therefore we are thinking more in terms of expedience than rights? By "expedience" I mean that we are focused on things like harm, cost, manageability, pregnancies, etc.
Your reasoning seems to depend heavily on the empirical question of how dangerous a male or else a trans woman is within a women's prison. I grant that if we knew for certain that no trans woman would ever cause harm within a women's prison, then your position about women's prisons would be golden. Similarly, if we knew that trans women would cause no more harm than the average woman, then your position would be secure.
Questions of perceptions and discrimination are also pertinent, and they could be leveraged to widen the meaning of "cause harm."
And also how dangerous it is for a trans woman to be in a men's prison.
You are fixated on a tiny tiny minority of people that have had quirks in their development. These people are not a separate sex or both sexes.
I’m not sure what this brings to the debate. For the 99.98% of the results are 100% accurate.
Why should women be put at risk of male violence to protect men?
We haven't been focusing on that question as much, and I think it has more to do with rights than expedience. This is because the trans woman in the women's prison potentially endangers the 99%, whereas the trans woman in the men's prison potential endangers the 1%. So if we restrict harm to individual harm, then even on a flat harm analysis it would require an enormous harm differential to rationally prefer the safety of the 1% to the safety of the 99%.
Practically speaking, the trans person is going to require special attention no matter where they are placed. If we had infinite money they would have their own prison.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
And yes - if we want to think about the historical situation of females in relation to males, then this is another consideration. @AmadeusD has spelled it out a few times.
Well yes, they are. That's why they are classified as biologically intersex rather than biologically male or biologically female.
There is no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically male and no set of necessary and sufficient conditions that qualify someone as biologically female such that every human satisfies either one of these sets or the other (and not both).
Quoting Malcolm Parry
The remaining 0.02% is 1,600,000 people. They exist, and any laws we pass that dictate which bathrooms or toilets or prisons people can use must account for them, else what is to be done if they want to use a public toilet, play football, or are convicted of a serious crime?
Quoting Malcolm Parry
That's a leading question.
If our primary concern is in reducing the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population then we must determine which of these scenarios reduces the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population:
1. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
2. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in men's prisons
3. Trans women in women's prisons and trans men in women's prisons
4. Trans women in men's prisons and trans men in women's prisons
It may be that more trans women would be the victims of sexual violence in men's prisons than would be the perpetrators of sexual violence in women's prisons, in which case the total amount of sexual violence in the prison population is reduced by placing trans women in women's prisons.
Whereas you seem to be arguing that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of transgender women, such that it's better for 10 transgender women to be the victims of sexual violence at the hands of a cisgender man than for 1 cisgender woman to the be the victim of sexual violence at the hands of a transgender woman? That would be incredibly sexist/transphobic.
That’s exactly what a man would say.
Again why should women have to exposed to male violence for men to be protected from male violence?
Why should transgender women have to be exposed to cisgender male violence for cisgender women to be protected from transgender female violence?
If you want to claim that the safety of cisgender women matters more than the safety of every other group, then just say it.
I’m arguing that men should not be allowed access to women’s spaces. If that is transphobia or sexism then I’m happy to be sexist and transphobic.
There is a reason why the sexes have separate prisons. What about this don’t you understand?
By this you mean "biological men should not be allowed access to biological women's spaces"?
But the question is: should prisons be divided into one space for biological men and one space for biological women?
This is why I suggested before to not use the term's "men's prison" and "women's prison". There is only Prison A and Prison B.
Two possible scenarios are:
1. Prison A is only for people who are biologically male and Prison B is only for people who are biologically female
2. Prison A is only for cisgender and transgender men and Prison B is only for cisgender and transgender women
In scenario 2 there is no such thing as a "biological women's space" (with respect to prison).
So we must ask ourselves; which of scenarios 1 and 2 is preferable? What factors must we take into account to determine this?
Quoting Malcolm Parry
We want to protect biological women from biological men.
But we should also want to protect transgender women from cisgender men.
So how do we balance these two concerns? We could treat cisgender and transgender women as equals, and so try to reduce the total amount of sexual violence amongst these two vulnerable groups.
I've not really been talking about policy, honestly. There are loads of ways to achieve things that would work for everyone logistically. UK prisons have diversity and inclusion volunteers {inmates} whose job is to act as a neighbourhood watch for hate crimes and the like.
For me this issue is generally not about policy, it's about what people think should inform policy. And that boils down usually to some intuition close to the following implication:
since {trans women are potential predators or men are latent rapists} and {trans women are men or trans women are criminals like men} then {trans women should be treated like men in various ways}.
Then I attack it on all fronts - doubt trans women are potential predators and that men are latent rapists and that trans women are men and that trans women are criminals like men. Even if I might agree with the conclusion for some ways - like maybe trans women shouldn't be in {drug tested?} women's powerlifting competitions.
I've largely not spoken about what I think ought to happen for any of these issues because I've been criticising the inferences that constitute the terrain. Except when I've referenced that the GRC was a sensible middle ground for lots of issues. Want to change your legal gender? Get an assessment and fill out a form, fund that process.
I think I've made my stance fairly clear. There are reasons why women have separate sports and separate exclusive places. Men (in which I include trans women) should not have access to these spaces. It is for society to work out how to protect trans women.
We can sort trans people into those who undergo medical transition and those who don't. Still, one can be transgender and not undergo medical transition. Then there is the further distinction between trans women who have undergone bottom surgery and those who have not.
In the past, I've heard that trans women would typically wait until they "passed" (a subjective measure) or were on HRT for an extended time before using a women's bathroom, but these days, anything goes - and so the legal pushback was needed. What we're seeing now is trans backlash, brought about by the trans movement's impulse to erase the deep-rooted categorical distinctions of male and female. The movement was on its strongest ground when it aimed for integration.
So what bathroom should Leo Macallan use?
Trans men get erased from conversations like these because men tend not to care if trans men use their spaces. Nobody will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a men's room.
Blaire White belongs in the women's room, but not all trans women do.
But if the law requires that one's biological sex determines which bathroom one can use then plenty of women will be outraged by Leo Macallan in a women's bathroom.
What would your response be to women and parents of young women who object to the idea of a male (biological or not who otherwise possesses a male sex organ) regularly being a few inches away from said woman or young woman while their pants are down (ie. vulnerable)? Surely you're aware most rapes are performed by individuals with penises. So it's natural to want to separate the two. At least in places people don't "choose" (per se) to be at or utilize per necessary human function and existence (ie. the restroom). You can live 1,000 lifetimes fulfilled without ever having to pick up a basketball or a tennis racket or a weight set. The same is not true of having to use the restroom. If you don't use the restroom, your organs would rupture and you'd literally die (you'd likely involuntarily relieve yourself long before then, but that's not the point). That reason alone is enough to separate the two into distinct lines of thought and discussion that should exclude using "restrooms" and "sports teams" in the same sentence, as if they were somehow equal in requirement to human life.
Moreover, as far as prisons, do you think "identifying as a female" by one's own statement is enough or does one have to have physically undergone surgery or otherwise have been diagnosed by a medical professional (ie. isn't just inaccurately self-diagnosing and therefore increasing/belittling the plight of truly and accurately medically diagnosed individuals -- like If I just happened to feel odd one day and say "oh i have cancer" and start taking up all cancer wards and equipment available for no reason when I don't really need it leaving those who actually do without recourse, of course not, that would be absurd, any doctor who permitted that ruse to go on would irrevocably lose his license)? I mean, honestly, at least when I was younger and I got into a small legal affair, I was thinking, "Damn, so if I just say I'm a chick they'll put me in a women's prison? I mean shoot... sign me up and call me Sally." :lol:
Beyond that, do you think a biological female identifying as male (presumably possessing the "organs", or perhaps not, actually especially not) wouldn't be singled out in prison anymore so than anyone else? To the point of it being cruel and unusual punishment? What about the opposite where a biological male identifying as a woman (perhaps not possessing the organs) ends up impregnating female inmates if placed in a woman's prison? (It's likely a fair few miss "male companionship", shall we say, or are otherwise aware that being pregnant in prison entails certain rights and privileges, codified as well as de facto, and might consider such to be in their best interest for the longevity of their stay?)
Indeed it is. And in fact has been done long ago, irrespective of such terminology, condition, or circumstance. It's called The Law or "the Constitution". Perhaps you've heard of it? It doesn't matter what I am or think I am, if you harass me, that's a crime, and if I can document it, you'll be cited and you'll see your day in court. If you assault or batter me, you'll be arrested and thrown into a nice cage while you await your trial. And if you resist? Oh boy... don't get me started if you resist -- it doesn't take much "searching" to see that you will be shot by multiple police officers in defense of their life. No one will complain. A few people unfortunate enough to have been close to you may cry, then move on, while the rest of society cheers. That. My friend. Is how we protect the weak, vulnerable, or marginalized. By law, order, and if you choose to rebel, a volley and barrage of bullets. That's... literally all that is humanly possible to perform. I mean, seriously, if you violently resist a law enforcement officer, odds are you will be shot to death. Killed. Do you understand how permanent and effective that is for mortal beings? What more could possible be done as far as protecting the good/innocent/vulnerable from the bad/guilty/criminal offender? Can you really think of anything? Death is the end. And that's what people who commit crimes against ANY citizen risks. There's really nothing else that can be done. That's the highest order of protection available. There's simply nothing else further that exists in fiction or non-fiction alike. I mean, short of some magical barrier that deflects bullets (and insults) around one's person... and I wouldn't hold out for that. Not in this world, no.
Sure, and I wouldn't support such a law. However, I don't believe that male genitalia belongs in women's locker rooms under any circumstances.
I have heard of incidents where FtMs enter women's locker rooms, and it leads to chaos.
So your suggestion is that bathrooms should be divided by "has a penis" (including trans men with an artificial penis) and "doesn't have a penis" (including trans women who have had their penis removed)?
No. Trans people should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration. A very passable trans woman (e.g., Blaire White) belongs in a women's restroom even with male genitalia.
Who gets to decide whether or not someone is passing? Is the masculine-looking cisgender woman who is often mistaken for a man required to use the men's bathroom, despite both her biological sex and gender identity being female?
Everyone should generally strive to act in ways that facilitate social cohesion and integration, and one such way is to not lash out when someone you don't want using your bathroom is taking a piss. Just wash your hands and leave.
I used to frequent a nightclub where all the toilets were unisex. It's really not a big deal.
If a man decides to start using women's spaces, is anyone even allowed to confront him in your view? What is the proper response if he claims to be trans but just hasn't started transitioning?
Quoting Michael
It can be difficult. Ambiguity is inherent to gender transition; it is a process, not an immediate switch from A to B.
Yet just because dusk and twilight exist doesn't mean there's no such thing as day and night.
And yes, unisex toilets are one way out of this difficulty.
Why does appearance matter? If the concern is the safety and well being of cisgender women, and if you say that trans women who pass as biological women ought use women's bathrooms, then there's the implicit claim that trans women who pass as biological women are less likely to sexually assault cisgender women in women's bathrooms than trans women who don't pass as biological women. Is there any basis behind such a claim?
But if you're not making such a claim then what's the reasoning in only allowing trans women who pass as biological women to use the women's bathroom? Is it just that cisgender women would be uncomfortable with transgender women who don't pass as biological women using the women's bathroom? I don't think that's a sufficiently good reason. There are likely plenty of homophobic women who are uncomfortable around lesbians and racist white men who are uncomfortable around black men, but that's not a sufficiently good reason to restrict bathrooms by race or sexuality.
I hear you, as the latter causes suffering for men, generally. But I do not think that is what's happening here. Otherwise, the general separation of males and females would suffer the same objection. I don't htink it does, or can.
Quoting fdrake
Yes, and that can be truly problematic in a social sense. But I do not think it wrong. If your conception is that men are male, then they are men, on their own logic.
Quoting fdrake
This is what I think is happening, and what gets said to me/in the media etc. If the word "man" is equated with "male" for the speaker in question, that's worth noting. This does also make me want to throw out, what would normally be, a confrontational challenge:
Are you happy to accept the "not all men" movement as legitimate and a reasonable objection to the feminism concept that "Not all men, but always men""? I find both true, but hte latter is what matters for safety.
Quoting fdrake
I think that's functionally true, and that is why females take it to be "latent". No one thinks all men are rapists unless they're insane or trolling. But most females have had unwanted sexual contact with a man. It is justified.
Quoting fdrake
I more-or-less agree, because I've suffered both rape, and false rape claims against me. That said, there is nothing wrong with point out "Someone with a penis = vastly more likely to rape". that seems empirically true, and justifies a lot of this type of reaction.
Quoting fdrake
I spoke about violence and (impilictly) property damage. Being a dick is fully allowed in society. Violence and property damage are not. This is why "gender critical" speakers regularly win legal battles about platforming, and trans activists are (semi)regularly losing legal battles around their activities ( one in NZ was quite the to-do given how low-level it was - but this came after several groups failed to prevent a women from coming here and speaking her mind. We can see a single direction that the unacceptable aspects of that issue are - preventing the free speech of a woman, and assaulting her when you couldn't shut her up. There are plenty of these examples like Stock, Maya Forstater, Hollow Lawford-Smith, Alison Bailey and many others
Quoting fdrake
The UK MOJ statistics? That's what I used for my assessment and even calibrated 50% of hte raw numbers to be favourable to trans women. I noted the Fair Play source wasn't as good, but gave some further info. I wouldn't rely on that to present hte "table" i gave.
Yet the furor over Isla Bryson? Please notice that statements aren't hte whole picture. You might trust the scientist, but I've outline very good reason for the author to state what they did, despite their paper showing something else. This also happened with that Scientific American infographic a few years ago that seemed to say that because intersex, sex wasn't binary - the author said as much. The author was not a scientist, but that aside, the infographic itself required a sex binary to make sense and stated exactly that.
Quoting fdrake
I have literally no clue how this analogy relates to our stats.
Quoting fdrake
To avoid the inevitable backlash. The courts are dealing with it now, including several attempts to have it reversed on EHRC appeals (absolute nonsense, and I think none will go far). If you don't think this is likely, I can only say "hehe". The fact which you put forward doesn't actually change anything - these are the prisoners we care about. The ones who end up not included in the data don't move the needle on what the data is telling us (particularly as the 100% is a calibration favourable to trans women at an exceptionally generous degree)
Quoting fdrake
Ambulance, meet bottom of hill. As the facts show, on those many cases I provided.
Quoting fdrake
Trans women are male. Males are housed in male prisons. This isn't hard, is it?
Quoting Michael
SRY.
Quoting Michael
Intersex is a misleading term. No one is neither male or female - almost all intersex conditions are conditional on which sex you are.
Quoting Michael
It seems so, yes. But I do not have data on that. It is also not quite the right question, and this wants us to retroactively assess whether or not X is occurring. What the policies on "this" side, let's say, want to do is avoid the risk entirely. I understand you're putting forth a separate risk that might outweight this one, so putting aside the retroactivity, I think its patently clear males are a higher risk to females than they are to other males, regardless of identity. Your point is not lost, though. It is far more likely that consensual relationships between non-trans males and trans women would occur in my view, than assault. So it may be that your scenario plays, but I have no reason to think so. Particularly as this was the case, for decades with no notable uptick in those types of assault, from what I can tell.
Quoting Michael
It is a biological condition which affects phenotype due to aberrations in sex differentiation, after determination is complete.
Quoting Michael
Humans are (around) 91-99% accurate in predicting sex from facial appearance alone
Quoting Michael
They do. It is easy to think otherwise, given the potential for aberration. And it is reasonable to take those aberrations into account in terms of how to deal with those categories in society. But they are 'true' categories, in that they admit of no exceptions (that I am at all aware of, even conceptually).
Quoting Michael
It is the case, though, Michael. Ambiguous phenotype doesn't affect sex. Otherwise particular phenotypic aberrations within unambiguous sex would alter sex determination, but they don't. Intersex is phenotypically intersex. Not that you are literally between the two sexes. Quoting Michael
Because they are male. This is, obviously, uncomfortable but the reverse risk is perverse. All males run that risk in prison with males. Females do not, as they are not housed with males. Perhaps comes down to any opinion.
This is the incorrect way of assessing sex determination. SRY is the correct way, with other genetic abnormalities appearing during sex differentiation. You can tell, because the article runs its premise on: "determines the development of sexual characteristics in an organism.." and that: "Some species (including humans) have a gene SRY on the Y chromosome that determines maleness." further on.
So it's good to be careful whether you're wanting to assert determination or development are variable. Only the latter is. Quoting Michael
There is; as above.
This is simply not a complicated topic, until you want to pretend Sex isn't binary. Then it gets weird. Luckily, that's not the case.
Quoting Michael
The person who can tell that they aren't. That's what passing is about, no? :up:
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Unisex + female-only.
Are you saying that a biological male is anyone with an SRY gene and a biological female is anyone without an SRY gene?
Quoting AmadeusD
I believe that Jane passes as a woman. John believes that Jane doesn't pass as a woman.
Does Jane pass as a woman? Ought Jane be allowed to use the women's bathroom?
Appearance matters. It reflects how one spends one's time and one's values. If the appearance doesn't match the claim, the claimant is not credible. I don't make the rules.
Trans women who don't pass might not even be on HRT. If a trans woman isn't on HRT, there is no way "she" should be using the women's bathroom. Even if a trans woman is early in her transition, she's likely essentially indistinguishable from a regular guy and should therefore not be using the women's restroom. It's those people who are mid-transition where things get dicey.
Also, trans women who have been on HRT for a while likely have very low T and a low sex drive. They are also weaker. So they should be less of a danger. It's also terrible PR for the trans movement.
On balance, I would place greater trust and safety in a woman who has been transitioning for years versus one who has just begun their transition for many reasons.
I'll say it in a few ways.
Trans women were only included in the MoJ data set if they had committed crimes like sex crimes.
You could not have found trans women in it if they'd served time for petty things with minimal sentences.
To be recorded as a trans woman, they had to go through a procedure which elicited that data, which only occurred after quite a long time in jail - IE, they must have served crimes with longish sentences. It's why the MoJ spent so much time clarifying it.
Say that 1% of people called David in prison are there for sex offences. Consider the population of Davids that used to play guitar. In order to find out whether any given David plays guitar, they need to be interviewed thoroughly. Then stipulate that the interviews occur after 1 year in prison.
You would then find that any David that played guitar in the data was imprisoned for at least as long a time as one who was not, and usually longer on average. The minimum sentence time for guitar playing Davids in the prison records is 1 year.
Make the simplifying assumption that half of the offences with sentences over 1 year are sex offences. Then if you have a David that played guitar in the data set, and looked at what they were in there for, it's a 50% chance they'd be a sex offender.
Actually recording a David as a guitar player means the sample of Davids which are guitar players will have longer sentences. So if you query the prison for data on Davids which are guitar players, they'll have 50% sex offence rate rather than the 1% of Davids in the general population. Even if in the general prison population Davids who play guitar have the same 1% rate.
If you interviewed them immediately to establish their guitar playing status, then the rate goes back to the 1% they were at in the general population.
Replace David with person, and guitar player with trans woman. That's the effect. The sampling mechanism for the data inflates the crime rates of the demographic for serious crimes.
Quoting Michael
Are you using the women's bathroom? If not, you're not relevant. I know that's not your point, so to address your issue:
In the hypothetical, no, she shouldn't, assuming she is male. Passing isn't a criterion for me, though, so unsure why I'm asked to defend it. All i meant is that "who passes" is up the person assessing you. What to do, policy wise, is another question and I think one that appearance wont resolve.
Quoting fdrake
Which are sentences we don't actually care about, for this assessment. Perhaps that's why I saw no relevance. I cannot understand why you would care about other crimes, when we're tlaking about propensity to commit sexual assault.
The maths of the situation makes it appear that trans women are much bigger criminals than they are, and the amount of exaggeration depends entirely upon the unobserved trans population, which committed petty crimes.
This is a hypothetical table of sentence lengths of trans in a prison. This is the true table. People are either trans or not trans. Then I've put a column in "Has Trans Recorded", which tells you if someone in the prison has filled out a form which records that someone is trans. They get filled out after 1 year in prison.
[math]\begin{array} {|r|r|}\hline Sentence-Length-Years & Has-Trans-Recorded & Is-Trans \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 0.5 & No & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \end{array}[/math]
Now, if you freedom of information requested the prison, they'd select for "Has Trans Recorded" being "Yes", since that's just the trans people they'd have in their database. Which would be:
[math]\begin{array} {|r|r|}\hline Sentence-Length & Has Trans Recorded & Is-Trans \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline 1 & Yes & Yes \\ \hline \end{array}[/math]
The mean number of years for a sentence in the first is 5*0.5+5*1 / 10 = 0.75
The mean number of years for the sentence in the second is 1.
You see the effect now?
Hey fdrake, sorry for not replying to you before. the black dog gets me man.
but I need to disagree with you.
Whoever you describe as the 'greater risk' is irrelevant to my understanding of morality.
what matters is fact. we have a number of factual examples of trans 'women' raping or assaulting women in female prisons.
I can provide those references for you, if you don't feel like steel-manning me.
you seem to have a problem with the court system determining that women are women.
I can't wrap my head around this. You are the first person here on TPF who I 'related' to, and I think highly of you.
But your arguments seem entirely of the woke variety, despite the fact that woke arguments continue to be proven wrong?
Like, I can provide evidence that the trans-affirmative model is failing? Failing trans people? Or evidence that woke thought entails mental illness?
There are myriad examples of trans female sex abusers abusing in female prisons.
So, the question to me is, how many sexual assaults are 'the cost' of empowering trans people in jails?
Zero? A number determined by statisticians?
There are trans criminals. pretending that this number is so small as to be irrelevant is duplicity.
I worry you are arguing from a utilitarian perspective that you can't prove valid?
You're right - but it is patently, and unequivocally irrelevant how many trans woman carry out petty theft, or public nuisance (which isn't linked to identity such as auto-gynephiles who present publicly as such) or whatever. What matters is what's harming females. And there, there is clearly, inarguably a propensity over females, and very strongly arguably a propensity over non-trans males. This may be true for pedophilia as well, but I actually don't even care to look into that further than what I've seen. The point isn't that that is true, the point is that if we want to protect children crimes against shop owners isn't relevant.
Edited in: Someone asked about htis:
trans men in male prisons would be at serious risk. That's why they shouldn't be there.
You were responding to my question to BitconnectCarlos, who claims that it is acceptable for a trans woman who passes as a biological woman to use women's bathrooms. My question to him is relevant to his position. If you disagree with his position then my question isn't relevant, so I'm not sure why you answered it.
Quoting AmadeusD
The deduction of biology is that an active SRY gene is responsible for the development of testes. What does that have to do with being biologically male? Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries? Then someone with ovotesticular disorder or is both biologically male and biologically female, and someone with gonadal dysgenesis is neither biologically male nor biologically female.
"Who decides who passes" didn't seem a policy question, but fair enough. Sorry.
Quoting Michael
False. SRY determines maleness. Male phenotype (including testes) is derived from genetic material, which can result in aberrations in genetic expression.
Which means your next two questions are not relevant.
Quoting Michael
Neither of these is true. Both of these aberrations occur during sex differentiation, not determination. A good way to know htis is that the second of these sometimes manigests as Turner syndrome. Turner Syndrome can only affect females.
What's maleness?
Quoting AmadeusD
You missed the preceding sentence:
Is a biological male any human with testes and a biological female any human with ovaries?
If the answer to this question is "yes" then someone with both testes and ovaries (i.e with ovotesticular disorder) is both biologically male and biologically female and someone with neither testes nor ovaries (i.e. with gonadal dysgenesis) is neither biologically male nor biologically female.
But if the answer to this question is "no" then what is the connection between an active SRY gene and being biologically male?
Quoting Michael
I didn't. But those responses make it quite clear. I didn't htikn "No" was required, given those statements. Apologies.
Quoting Michael
They are synomymous. That's the connection. We call "active SRY gene" maleness, in a human. I assume you're looking for a form and function response. And it is clearly true that males are supposed to have a certain form and function, and females are supposed to have another with genetic aberrations interrupted the processes.
What's the connection between "human" and human genetic material?
Great response. Your knowledge is greater than mine and I’ve learned a couple of things from these exchanges. My stance has not changed but it’s always good to acquire knowledge.
I think the maths undermines the degree of urgency of the issue, honestly. Fair Play's rhetoric goes hard on the degree of sexual criminality trans women have. It's central for portraying this as a crisis. That's also the rhetorical reason for focussing on trans women having a "male pattern of criminality".
It's quite difficult for me to take the panic seriously given we know, and presumably Fair Play knew since the MoJ knew, that the data paints trans people in an exaggeratedly bad light.
If it's more broadly about Man Dangerous Rapist Woman Weak Raped, we're back in the norms discussion, and I don't want to pretend that the motte is the bailey like I highlighted before.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I think you can disagree with me there about what's true, or whether the logic I presented reflects how people think, but not about the validity of the logic in the post.
Quoting fdrake
If the claim is {a trans woman is a man} and {is more of a risk on that basis}, then the implication doesn't apply in context if its antecedent is false - that "a trans woman is a man" is false, ie that they are a woman. Or if the consequent is false - that trans women are more of a risk. So their perception would be incorrect if trans women were women or that trans women were not more of a risk. Their perception could still be correct, I'm just highlighting how I'm arguing with that remark.
You could also argue the implication, that "man implies more risk of sexual assault of women in prisons" is false, but I didn't do it at this point.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yeah there's absolutely examples. I don't think you immediately get to conclude that trans women are more of a risk than women on that basis, you see what I mean? It's similar to really violent offenders or sex offenders, they get special precautions, but you need to establish that someone is a sex offender or really violent to treat them that way. You'd need to establish that a demographic was on average sufficiently riskier to treat them differently.
There's also a question about the degree of perceived risk vs the real risk. Trans people generally get treated as if they're a massive risk in an absolute sense when it doesn't make much sense, like people terrified of the prospect of unisex bathrooms. It could be that there's more of a reason to keep trans women out of women's prisons than trans women out of women's bathrooms, it's just that the underlying reaction to both is the same for many people.
Also, I am afraid I am quite woke.
And there are factual examples of trans women being raped or sexually assaulted in men's prisons.
In fact, according to this, "the total number of transgender victims far exceeds the number who were suspected of carrying out sex attacks, with only one such case in 2019."
Both the safety of cisgender women and the safety of transgender women (and cisgender men and transgender men) matter. You (and at least one other in this discussion) seem to only care about the safety of cisgender women.
We can, and do, talk about intersex individuals having both a female phenotype and a male karotype, or having both a male phenotype and a female karotype, therefore the terms "male" and "female" cannot mean what you claim they mean, else such biologies would be logical contradictions.
As an example, someone with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (NSFW) has a female phenotype despite having an active SRY gene.
Therefore the adjective "female" cannot mean "doesn't have an active SRY gene".
Your account is incompatible with how the English language is actually used.
It's easy enough to pin it down.
Then what does it mean?
It means the person was born male. For a doctor, there are a lot of implications, which is why a patient's biological sex is listed at the top of a patient's electronic chart along with weight, height, and birthday.
Which means what?
I don't understand why you're asking that. You really don't understand what it means to be born male?
Because AmadeusD is claiming that every human is either biologically male or biologically female, and so that no human is intersex.
If his claim is true then it's not clear to me what counts as being biologically male and being biologically female, given the existence of individuals with XX male syndrome, complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, ovotesticular syndrome, gonadal dysgenesis, etc.
As an example, if to be biologically male is to have a penis and to be biologically female is to have a vagina, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either a penis or a vagina. And yet people with ambiguous genitalia exist.
Or, if to be biologically male is to have an XY karotype and to be biologically female is to have an XX karotype, and if everyone is either biologically male or biologically female, then everyone has either an XY karotype or an XX karotype. And yet people with different karotypes exist.
So you tell me; what does "biological sex" refer to? Does it refer to karotype? Does it refer to phenotype? Does it refer to something else? Is biological sex a strict dichotomy such that every human must be either one sex or the other?
For most people it's straightforward. If someone has XY chromosomes, there's a long list of predictions we can make about their biology.
In the other cases, we don't just give up and say we don't know which biological sex they are. We might have a different set of predictions due to a certain condition, but it's still a male or female that has the condition, and that remains significant.
I guess there could be a total gestational screw up where there's no way to tell, but I doubt that thing would be compatible with life. If it is, we'd just give it its own category.
Then what does “biological sex” refer to? You seem to be saying that even though the vast majority of biological men have an XY karotype and that even though the vast majority of people with an XY karotype are biological men, there are exceptions.
If there are exceptions then “is biologically male” doesn’t mean “has an XY karotype”.
So what does “is biologically male” mean?
I don't there are exceptions to that.
Quoting Michael
XY.
So “biological male” means “has an XY karotype” and “biological female” means “has an XX karotype”?
Pretty much
And there are people who have neither an XX nor an XY karotype, therefore according to your own definitions there are people who are neither biologically male nor biologically female.
Right.
Note: Exceptions are exceptions though. We do not go around stating that when a child is born with four arms, or no arms, that we should think of humans as having 0-4 arms. Such levels of stupidity exist, so I wouldn't be surprised to find people stating just that.
I guess the point was that there are rare cases where biological sex is ambiguous. The vast majority of the time, it isn't.
@fdrake @Michael
This is why the definition of what it means to be biologically male/female or the sociological/cultural definitional concerns as regards gender are somewhat irrelevant.
In the end it's the same argument when all the definitional dust has settled. When you mix different groups together they will inevitably have conflicts whether that is between different: races, cultures, nationalities, religions, ages, genders, sexes, political positions, etc.
No one denies this or should although select groups make a culture dime off of showcasing the 'dangers' of said mixing.
It's like keeping colored and uncolored spaces in certain parts of the U.S. because if you didn't then there may be conflict between the groups. You morally want to avoid that so you choose instead to keep the spaces in place. Is that still, however, a morally right choice? Even if there is great suffering in the beginning would you keep going in the hopes that it will culturally equilibrate?
I'm not going to say how successful it was but at least as regard colored and non-colored spaces we have moved on from those even if there was 'brief' conflict in their dissolution.
Further, this shifts the goal posts so the problems that need to be solved are not combining bathrooms together but solving the reason why men are more likely to rape women. That and 'rampant' pedophilia seem to be the key 'issues'. However, to reduce said statistics that takes a hell of a lot more work and social engineering I'm willing to bet neither political side is willing to jump straight into. In fact, I'm not going to name it, but one side might want to see these are natural drives that we just possess and cannot in fact ever solve. Ergo, certain spaces whether they regard sex or other cultural dividing classes are forever to be split. So says. . . the side I'm not going to name.
I provided five traits that almost always occur together in females and males.
- chromosomes (in humans, XY is male, XX female)
- genitals (penis vs. vagina)
- gonads (testes vs. ovaries)
- hormones (males have higher relative levels of testosterone than women, while women have higher levels of estrogen)
- secondary sex characteristics that aren’t connected with the reproductive system but distinguish the sexes, and usually appear at puberty (breasts, facial hair, size of larynx, subcutaneous fat, etc.)
They would be whatever they have a majority (three or more) of the traits.
Quoting Michael
Quoting Michael
Male and female are not syndromes or disorders.
Quoting Michael
Sure, it's a biological condition, but is it a sex condition, or a vestigial trait, like the tail?
A hermaphrodite is either an abnormality or a natural condition, depending on the species. We are discussing humans.
Quoting Michael
Or it may be that any person perceived as weak, regardless of their sex/gender, will be the target of assaults. This is prison we are talking about and violent criminals are typically housed with other violent criminals. If a trans person committed a violent act, I couldn't care less where they are housed (karma), just as long as they are segregated from the rest of us.
As for sports and bathrooms, I think we've gotten along perfectly fine with the way things are. If you are so concerned about the weak being injured or raped, then why create circumstances where women are injured by men in sports and raped by men in bathrooms?
Quoting Michael
How are we going to police men with a dress and a wig that claim to be a woman with the intent to victimize women in a women's bathroom?
To be fair, if men are going to do this they needn't 'dress up' for the occasion. If someone appears to be female then I see no real harm in them entering a toilet. The issue being there is no way to tell. If there is a clear case where someone is a man dressed as a woman, then if they enter and no one sees them it makes no difference.
Other ideas would be to rename 'Disabled' toilets as 'Universal' (or something like that).
I think looking at specific cases is kind of trivial. Some people are idiots and some are not. Some people are violent and others are not. Some wish to cause harm and other do not.
We do certainly have to appreciate that certain behaviors have no physiological evidence. For example, being homosexual is not discernable by looking at someone's DNA anymore than being psychopathic is (although I am aware of the former being partially possible).
One thing is for sure. I should not be committing an illegal act for pointing out that someone is a man, fat, black or any other number of things.
I was once verbally 'attacked' for apparently calling someone 'fat,' when in fact the situation was that a girl with literally two chins (clearly obese) stated to everyone around the table that she was NOT fat. I simply said, without hesitation, "Yes, you are. I am not bothered by it. If you are it is your problem." or something along those lines. the fact that the vast majority of people around the table had a go at me, and others remained silent, is why these things come into the public eye.
People shouldn't be gagged if they disagree, but inevitably they will be from time to time. The very fact that these topics are contested is a good sign, even if the manner in which we repeatedly fuck up as a species is annoying. Apathy is probably worse - even if this derails the antagonists!
Why?
Not personal. Medical personnel need to know what your sex was at birth. That's not ambiguous, unless it is.
After 11 pages, is it not time to admit defeat and perhaps stop trying to force all humanity into the categories we habitually use for toilets and prisons?
Sex is actually an important part of the human species as well as human social life. Haven't you noticed this?
Yes. Haven't you noticed the ambiguity? Not just the varieties of physical inter-sex ambiguity but also the sex-gender ambiguity, and the physical-mental ambiguity.
And who has to consider it and why, are important questions to consider also. Everyone is supposed to be normal? But not everyone is. And the decisions of the UK supreme court about the interpretation of some words in a recent law do not make anyone more normal.
Point them out. If there are 'ambiguities' then clearly (or not) some may not. Exactly what do you have a problem with?
The nature of the complaint is also ambiguous. :grimace:
'Every wind in the river sure makes its own way down to the sea.'
Yup, it's personal. That is your insistance on using karyotype to determine biological sex. As it happens medical personnel (unlike your personal definition) don't use karyotype to determine biologic sex at birth, they inspect the baby's genitalia.
Under your definition biologic sex was unable to be determined before 1956.
When someone wants to lay down the law about who can and who cannot excrete here or there, then the hairs have to be picked, or split or something, because all God's children gotta take a dump, even the weirdos and curiosities.
Personally, I'm happy to let people pick the toilet they feel most comfortable with, and not demand to see their genetic record or genitalia or certificate of sexual identity. And maybe in prisons spend enough money to make everyone safe anyway and not have to segregate in the first place, except to isolate those who cannot or will not restrain themselves sexually or violently.
Uh... yes. Keep the violent people away from non-violent people. What did you not understand about that? If trans are being placed among a violent prison population, it is because they committed acts of violence themselves. You seem to think that all trans people are saints and only cis-people can be mean and disrespectful.
Quoting I like sushi
It makes it easier to commit the crime, because they are able to enter a woman's safe space without anyone being suspicious, and get away with it because they are wearing a disguise.
Quoting I like sushi
Wouldn't this be acknowledging that sex and gender are the same thing - or at least that gender is biological, because urinating and defecating are biological functions.
Do they? :lol:
What is your point. I simply said anyone can dress up as the opposite sex and enter another toilet. If you can literally not tell the difference there is no way of policing this.
I don't know about you, but I have seen plenty of gay men entering female toilets with their girl friends. Illegal? Yes. Does anyone really care that much to enforce it? No.
No matter what the laws are people will go on being people and work things out in their own way.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You think having 'disabled toilets' functioning as 'universal toilets' is equivalent to stating gender and sex are the same thing? Are you taking the piss? ;)
You think all restrooms should be open to anyone? What about sports?
Uummm... yes we do. What do you think happens at delivery? "congratulations you had a baby, we'll get back to you when the labs get back on whether it's a girl or a boy."
I work in an emergency department, so I'm present at deliveries. :grin:
I'm happy to let people who want to play games choose who they will or won't play with and against. Personally I think athletes cheat by exercising and practicing so we wimps stand no chance; so I won't compete in their sports.
I don't think restrooms need policing; they just need regular cleaning. I always use the one with the symbol person with trousers, not the one with the dress, but they are usually both 'open to anyone', except for the individual cubicles when occupied.
Quoting Michael
No. There is absolutely no contradiction at all. Convenience makes a lot of things unclear. If you are male, the fact you have a 'female' phenotype (which can't be true - you have certain feminine traits, physically speaking - and almost universally incomplete and inactive so, even functionally... Not female) does not change your sex. It means your phenotype is an aberration, and your process of sex differentiation went awry which we know because if your SRY is active, this is not a typical process - it is atypical, and aberration which we can actually pin down genetically, and we call 'disorder'. This is not complicated. Sex determination, and sex differentiation are different processes. This is why you are getting confused about clear uses of the same word in a single field for multiple indications.
Quoting Michael
They are male. This is not hard to understand. A fully fledged male can be extremely feminine without aberration. So, either you're saying a physical spectrum determines sex or something else does.
I have given you the something else, and I have actually provided sources. One really easy one right here , on the Wiki for Sex Differentiation. We get this banger:
"Most mammals, including humans, have an XY sex-determination system: the Y chromosome carries factors responsible for triggering male development."
Supported by:
"Males: The SRY gene when transcribed and processed produces SRY protein that binds to DNA and directs the development of the gonad into testes."
As you can see, once this has happened at fertilization and sex has been determined all sorts of aberrations and genetic mishaps can take place, causing differences in differentiation to do with either internal or external genitalia, breast development, psychological development (weaker, but theories about)
Under the section about DSDs (disorders of sex development) we get this:
"These categories consists of different types of female disorders along with categories specifically for male DSDs."
Because all people are either female or male. There are no people who are not female or male (if you truly belivee there are, I need to know what they are.. no am "ambiguous" because that would simply violate the two categories we have... WHAT are they; bearing in mind "intersex" is also, insufficiently clear in meaning, and clearly not about whether the organism is male or female.. what's the third category or number of categories??)
Quoting Michael
It does, though, when used here. You're bait-and-switching this to high hell. If you mean chromosomal sex, then say that. If you mean phenotypic sex then say that. These have no effect on whether one is a male or female organism.
I cannot understand why this is even something to push back against. They are simple observations about biology.
Only when you do not have the gear to check it out. It is visually ambiguous. It is not ambiguous, per se. And none of this - none, whatsoever - has a social dimension to it. Those are totally different questions. But fwiw, whether we're talking socially or biologically, using visually-represented phenotype to determine sex is bonkers.
Why is it bonkers?
But The debate is about the law, about male and female toilets, prisons, and safe spaces, and these things have neither phenotypes nor chromosomes.
Quoting frank
Because it leads to ambiguity, and some people find ambiguity intolerable. Fear of coming on to a ladyboy, perhaps?
I know you're tri-sexual. You'll try anything. :grin:
Hey fdrake,
You think of gender as a social construct, then?
Because if one concedes any biological component at all then yes, trans women are more of a problem in women's prisons then cis women. Due to the entirety of human history.
Quoting fdrake
Trans people are not seen as a 'massive risk' and they are especially not seen that way in the bathroom. That's a bait and switch.
I guess you could fairly argue that some frame trans issues (not people) as a 'massive risk'. Because wokeness is a massive risk though.
I shouldn't have to say this, but anyone opposed to trans identities prima facie isn't aligned with my moral beliefs, nor the beliefs of the vast majority of people who identified with Trump's 'she is with they/them campaign'.
The majority of opposition to trans issues comes from environments of genuine harm - so far, this appears to be change rooms (which, I mean, obviously, different from bathrooms), the playing field of sports (again, obviously, minor consideration with kids, major consideration with adult bodies), and women's prisons.
When I talk about the issue in prisons, I am not talking theoretically. There are numerous examples of trans women raping prisoners, and if you'd like, I'll present you with some. Same as with injuries on the sporting field.
The 'tiny percentage of people' argument has been advanced by such luminaries as John Oliver, in his latest bit on trans people. Have you seen it? Your argument is the same?
I would say that any scenario of a person claiming trans identity and then raping women in prisons - or even, engaging in consensual sex with women in prison - is one too many. Simply because it is wrong to do so. Same in reverse. I think your premise of affirmation ENABLES this problem.
Some people suck, and will lie, in order to gain advantage.
Frame this as terrified of unisex bathrooms? Bait and switch.
I am no deontologist. I do think I can assert wrongness in this scenario.
It sounds as if you are utilitarian. As in, some harms are fine, if they enable an overall social good?
But of course, as an educator, you know that children are not representatives of their demographic groupings, but rather, they are individuals?
And you know, of course, that kids are not capable of understanding, say, complex utilitarian arguments that posit THEM as avatars of injustice?
I think default trans-affirmation, as a norm, is not just 'harming' conservatives. I think it harms the trans kids, the gay kids, the gender weirdos. This default belief system that you maybe? endorse is doing damage to the people it claims to empower. again, happy to provide evidence. From LGBTQ communities themselves. You must be aware of the second gen feminist rejection of trans issues? The gay/lesbian argument that this is simply convincing gay people to adopt a different identity?
Quoting fdrake
So, man, why??
Let me hit you with my best anti-woke questions.
Why endorse wokeness when it harms the people it is supposed to help?
I can 'prove' this, or at least argue it with powerful evidence. Frankly, I'd rather present evidence than argument on this subject, as I don't know any wokist who can beat me in that realm.
What replaces the liberal enlightenment project that wokeness seeks to undue? Reparations? Who funds it? Who repairs the damage to the poor white guy living next to the poor black guy, who is no longer poor, thanks to government largesse?
What do you say to renounced wokists like myself? I got cancelled for playing a hip hop song in an English class. There are legions of detransitioners. The most intelligent commentary I see around race in America comes from anti-woke types like John McWhorter and Coleman Hughes. Both black men.
Again, I hate even having to type that as if it matters.
Your side gets Kamala Harris.
Even progressive fundamental texts are lacklustre. You mentioned bell hooks in a post with me, and I picked up a book of hers to reconnect. But bell hooks was relevant decades ago. and bell hooks is much less shitty than progressive 'academics' at the moment.
Prove me wrong on this point by naming one modern legit woke academic. One. I like Matt McManus. that's the only name I can come up with. What has wokeism accomplished?
heterodox and conservative academics? much stronger than the woke. again, I will prove this to you with examples, if you like. and of course, mainstream conservative arguments are garbage. I am a conscientious objector, neither left nor right.
to sum up how I view your position - what good is a theory that consistently fails to predict things accurately?
Hey man, I hope I said all that respectfully, and I hope you see the length of this response as respect. I felt welcomed here on TPF based on responses like yours to me. I'm listening to the ST Specials album, as I write back to you, to try and get into what I perceive as your vibe.
I was into ARA myself, which was less common here in Canada.
But what did the Specials do? They formed a multicultural band (contrary to wokeness), they employed Rico Rodriguez (contrary to wokeness, cultural appropriation), they wrote songs against racism (like, most of them).
'I'm being chased by the national front', but the national front right now is woke.
Hi Michael,
I care about trans men in women's prisons, and trans women in reverse. I reject your implication that my statement was transphobic. I further assert that your statement is problematic for the LGBTQ+ community AND the trans community.
I just don't think you or the people who argue what you are arguing know what you are talking about.
I worked front line as a progressive teacher for two decades. the sort of teacher kids came out to.
I was destroyed for playing a hip hop song. kids relied on me. not, i should conform to having been there for them.
this happens all the time.
I call your position morally wrong.
Please, prove me wrong! for real man, I want strong disagreement and such. I do not reject you for thinking what you think. but i do think you morally wrong, and request that you prove your point with evidence
Correct. And (if accepted) the fact that biology gives us (at least one) "sex" which is universally applicable and attends to the interesting factors (obviously, transition changes this but I do not htink that legally relevant, for present purposes. A further discussion, to be sure, as indicated by my final lines previously) then we need a pretty damn good reason to move from this obviously legislatable framework, to one which is ambiguous, hard to understand and disparate (in terms of who accepts what premises of the legal framework - people took govts to court over allowing the relaxation of restriction, some are now taking it to court over reversing it). I could certianly have been clearer as to why I found it relevant, though so fair enough. Sorry about that.
Quoting frank
Because it doesn't tell us what we want to know (in the infinitesimal cases it cannot be understood immediately on-sight. Rare indeed). This doesn't even require that I have a position on it, either. It is simply not helpful. Susan Boyle might be caught up by that. Jeffery Starr would likely be (on converse sides to "sex") where there isn't an ambiguity for the person involved. Seems that this would lead to the exact problems the objections of the kind "What, you're going to check genitals at the door?" seem to point out (and reasonably)
Quoting unenlightened
Setting aside the clear stab here(it was funny, so fine lol) I am bisexual, and married. LOL. I do not care what people look like, generally. The ambiguity means the rules are irrelevant. There is no restriction, in those cases because anyone can claim an identity and move along expecting you to assent to their self-image. If that seems reasonable, we don't have much ground on which we could talk about it.
True. What's your opinion on pronouns? Do you know anyone who goes by "they"?
Bruh. I mean, all that aside. Scientific fact states the human mind isn't done developing until the age of 25. Beyond that, actually. If children could be trusted to make lifelong decisions whose consequences would be with them until the day they die, the legal age of adulthood wouldn't be all the way up to age 18. People make mistakes when young. They're simply wrong. Often. That's why insurance rates go down after 25. Trust me, when it comes to this world and money, those types of people are never going to be wrong.
Unless you think children are much more equipped to make lifelong decisions and the age of legal adulthood and fornication with persons much older than them should be much lower? Do you? Please reveal yourself as such if so. And yes, a non-answer happens to be just as damning (or rather, the equivalent of one) in this particular corner you've painted, by the way.
I agree with some of what you say regarding trans, but do you think there is still systemic racism in this country against blacks? Do you think the fact we've never had a woman president is indicative of anything? Do you think the fact that Congress and the leadership of Fortune500 companies are disproportionately made up of white males is indicative of anything?
I have an odd relation with a 'sister' of mine.
She was my actual sister's partner from when I was 12 to when I was 26. She is a sister to me. However, about four years ago (after being absent from the country for several years) she decided she is now "they" and Charlie.
No issues with it. I guess my position is that you can't command me to use them. But in most cases, it would be socially decent. When things get argy-bargy i resile entirely from others expectations that I assent to their self image.
That sounds reasonable.
:up:
Quoting Outlander
That is something happening inside your head. The Fifth exists to counter this exact erroneous reasoning. I do not htink that's a great argument, but it indicates that refusal to answer a question can only be described by excatly that... refusal to answer. It doesn't import any other assumption (or, shouldn't. The assumptions aren't the refuser's to answer to).
Quoting RogueAI
Preface: I refuse, prima facie, to see a disparity and lay it at the feat of bigotry. I need more.
1. No. It seems pretty obviously not the case. Trump throws a spanner, but if he's framing whatever mght actually affect Blacks negatively (seems he's doing the opposite, mostly) as a corrective, it's very hard to not accept that given the argument the other way supporting DEI;
2. Yes. Indicates that there is a lot of historical context to support both:
- Why not many women have become electable (haven't had the chance);
- Why people have a hard time voting for women, generally (unfamiliarity or inapt familiarity such
as a doting or abusive mother).
3. Probably that White Males are closer to masoschists than most black americans. But there's a deeper issue - the havoc wrought by Blacks in their own communities (whether or not the conversation about 'origins' of that havoc occurs and is agreeable) prevents them from systematically terrorizing other communities. White Men seem to have the time and space to do this indiscriminately. So, two layers of "You could be better psychopaths" LMAO. Most women do not want to be top managers because of the absolutely unbearable burden on ones mind, time and energy. I do not think this weird. I think it a fairly normal response to the historical situation in which people have gained, roughly, equality.
You do understand. . . being an adult. . . that you don't spot rapists, pedophiles, and violent offenders off the street with some violent mind reading equipment. YOU WAIT UNTIL THEY COMMIT AN OFFENCE and then try them in a court.
We are talking about being proactive and whether laws should separate groups because of the POSSIBILITY of conflict by select rare offenders.
So if I had two groups, demarcated by race/gender/sex/religion/etc, should we enforce laws to separate them if there was the possibility of increased conflict from them? Not necessarily by virtue of any consistency or homogeneity of opinion with the main group from the offending group.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Example: Terrorism coming from select cultural/religious groups. Given there is a possibility that by blending said groups together with native populations could potentially increase the risk of terroristic activity (even though you don't know who if anyone from that group it could come from) should we therefore enforce laws that separate or discourage this mixing?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Violence naturally comes from any groups being mixed but we don't try to separate out. . . say. . . the population based on race statistics by legal/government decree to mitigate against this. Even if, perhaps, the general population does this somewhat clearly. I think most would still say it would be immoral and irrational to do so even if by doing so those race on race conflicts would be ended if they just remained separated.
They should discourage the importing of harmful people. If there is a high percentage of certain crimes carried out by an identifiable group, we do tend to legislate against that potential.
Men are not allowed in women's bathrooms. But this is not to encourage dissent between men and women. It is to prevent conflict, as you note. But using your final example, we could perhaps encourage caution when there are obviously indicators. An obvious indicator would not be a burqa. Far more conversation needed to get that onto any reasonable ground. In principle though, profiling and caution are more than likely the bedrock supports society uses to avoid wholesale intrasocietal conflict.
I also don't think I'm taking it too far as much as abstracting the reasoning that people use to justify this.
Quoting AmadeusD Yeah. . . so how far are we supposed to take it?
When is the amount of potential conflict enough to legally/morally demand said caution if not take measurements to mitigate it similar to cautionary importation restrictions?
It also doesn't really solve the issue that such measures we're created to mitigate against to begin with. It puts a band aid on the real issue and we just sort of hopefully 'wait it out' until the dust settles.
It's like separating two kids because they had some tussle to cool off. Except, we never try to get them to make up we just never have them see each other again. Problem. . . solved?
To the point that it is helpful, or violates other norms to avoid harm.
Quoting substantivalism
Probably yes, but that will be read as either "too far" or "Strawman". I don't think either is the case, in reality. These are discussions, not podiums for election.
Quoting substantivalism
But that is what society is, and does, on its face. I can't see that 'society' amounts to much else. I think you're maybe being insufficiently clear that we're talking about visible groups, not just groups. We have plenty of 'out' groups (like rapists) who are widely condemned, often attacked with impugnity etc... for good reasons (to clean up society in some way).
I'm not for legislating, which may be what you're getting at, but I am definitely for individuals having their wits about them and making discriminatory judgments wherever they can, provided they are not arbitrary. I accept the unfortunate reality of this leading to plenty of ill-informed or patently illogical personal discrimination. I take this to be hte price.
Quoting substantivalism
What's that, to you?
Quoting substantivalism
Often, yes. Avoid each other. You can still be in the same class, but do you best not to interact for your own goods. Seems a reasonable remonstration.
It also doesn't really address the nitty gritty details of the sorties series of conflict percentages and when it gets high enough to actually warrant said action.
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Quoting AmadeusD
Reducing the number of POTENTIAL offenders. . . not JUST the ACTUAL. That requires higher amounts of self-reporting, self-medication, and therapy to address the ailments which potentially lead to them performing said offences to begin with.
However, that 'widely condemned' thing you just noted works as a double edged sword and pushes potential offenders underground so they cannot get the treatment they require. In cases of extreme anti-social disorders or pedophilia they are bound to offend in some cases sooner or later unless treated.
That is the real issue that needs to be addressed. It's similar to how we address drug offences in that we either punish harshly those who use, because we can't easily get to the providers, so it raises demand on the product while punishing people into becoming frequent recidivists. However, we can't normalize all said drugs as that would conflict with moral dictates even if it did hurt the pocket book of select producers.
Do you see the tremendous social/cultural task before us now?
I apologise, it was a bit pointed. But I couldn't resist the opportunity to make the sharp point of 'what really matters' to people about sex, which is who one might have it with. But the reality is that there is no restriction to anyone who can 'pass'. But anyone who cannot pass, (which is to say cannot conform their physicality to the stereotype) as either normal, is already subject to social condemnation, revulsion and hatred. The UK law in effect forces such people into places where that hatred and revulsion will be worst. We are interested in people, not genes, and people just are fucking weird. I am old enough to have been stopped in the street and given lectures about how my long hair meant they couldn't tell if I was a boy or a girl. To which my reply was generally, "If you can't tell, it is none of your business." I still maintain that.
It is rather odd that society mandates the covering up of the sex, but then turns that same covering into a conventional display of it as gender. To the extreme that defecation has to be done in secret behind a locked door alone. As though pulling one's pants down made one sexually irresistible??? Humans are ALL weird. Perhaps we are bonobos pretending to be chimps.
So you are happy for women’s sport to be destroyed and for women to risk assault when needing a to go to the toilet away from their home?
I am happy for all sport to be destroyed, at least as a public display. And I am happy that women are generally not risking assault more when going to the public toilet than when walking down the street. Thus toilets need no more security than streets.
So you are happy asking leading questions like some cheap attorney rather than interpreting charitably and engaging with others on equal terms?
Why would I interpret charitably what I think is a crazy stance? Millions of women world wide enjoy sport but you would happily dismantle the structure that allows them to do that.
Women have much to contend with that I or any man doesn’t have to consider. Excluding men from exclusive women’s spaces is a simple and effective way of minimising assault (which is probably not the main issue) and embarrassment and feeling uncomfortable (which is hardly ever factored by men in discussing the issue) which of women having to share changing rooms and toilets with men.
Whassup.
Mostly yes.
Why?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
You can add domestic abuse support groups to the list as well! If my take matters at all on each of these - I'll assume that the person has a gender recognition certificate {GRC}, ie they've managed to change their legal gender somehow.
1 ) Sports - probably depends on the sport. Tennis? Maybe no difference. Powerlifting? Definitely a difference. I think performance makes a difference.
2 ) Domestic abuse support groups - mix them up. Regardless of the other considerations, these are supervised group sessions of non-criminals, there's about the same risk to anyone as going to a cafe. I don't see a good argument for excluding trans peeps from these especially when they have a GRC.
3 ) Changing rooms - these are probably okay to mix from a risk perspective. Especially when they have a GRC.
4 ) Prisons - I'd probably want someone who has a GRC to get a choice of which gender prison they go to.
If we're talking about a process in which someone can just say that they're another gender on a form, and it grants them a choice, I think that's quite exploitable. Even then I don't think this one would matter much for domestic abuse support groups.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes.
Yes.
I think both of those groups need to put the pipe down.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I take the point. If you make it about managing sex offenders in prisons, there are already protocols in prisons for dealing with sex offenders regardless of gender. If it were just about sex offences, women who have committed sex offences on other inmates should be sent to men's prisons. Do you agree with those further points?
I ask it because if the driving factor is protecting women from sexual assault, that should also apply to women who provide such risks. If it instead only applies to men who would sexually assault women in these spaces, then sexual assault alone doesn't explain the difference in treatment.
If instead there's something uniquely risky about trans women because they're allegedly men, that needs more words.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
You don't see them that way. many people I've spoken with do. I treat the issue in that way because, my experience is, people think there is something uniquely risky about trans women because {allegedly} they are men.
I'll respond to your anti-woke stuff in a personal message, as I think the thread has enough tangents as it is.
Why do you think that the adjectives "male" and "female" properly refer only to the status of the SRY gene and not chromosomal sex or phenotypic sex?
Our disagreement has nothing to do with biology, but about the meaning of the adjectives "male" and "female".
I think as a general examination of etymology, phenotype is the most immediate determinant of how the adjectives "male" and "female" are ordinarily used, with their uses in other cases deriving from this, e.g. the "male" chromosome pair (or the SRY gene) is only described as being male because it is the most common cause of a male phenotype.
I put it to you that if there is an alien species that is phenotypically indistinguishable from humans, such as Kryptonians in fiction, but with different chromosomes and DNA, then the adjective "male" in the phrase "male human" means the same thing as the adjective "male" in the phrase "male Kryptonian".
You wouldn't and you don't. So please just ignore the crazy people instead of baiting them. Because in responding to them you are already implying that they are amenable to persuasion and argument. Why do you keep asking a crazy person questions? Have you no sensible people to talk to?
I'm not baiting anyone. I'm interested in why people wish to eliminate women from sport and think female only facilities are unnecessary. I won't bother with you since you have made your stance clear and I doubt you will change.
Yes, destroying womens' sports is nuts, but how would you enforce a bathroom law? Suppose Al has transitioned to Alice and looks like a woman. Do you want to force Alice to use the men's restroom? Conversely, if Alice has transitioned to Al, and looks like a man, do you want to force Al to use women's restrooms?
Indeed it is nuts; or rather "crazy". But it is not what I said. It is an uncharitable and invalid inference from what I did say. I don't much like sport so I would be happy if there was less sport, but I am not going to dismantle sport supposing that were remotely possible. But what I advocated for sport is that those concerned should make their own arrangements according to the sport. Snooker, I noticed has started to have matches between the sexes and good luck to them. Basketball probably ought to have segregation by height if anyone wants my opinion; fishing seems to have women in the ascendent position, I don't know what their policies are.
Bathrooms have been used quite simply for decades. Not sure why it would be an issue now.
I agree, but isn't that a "woke" idea? I thought the anti-woke crowd, such as yourself, wanted trans people to have to use the bathroom of their sex instead of the gender they identify as.
Yes. My point was that rare cases of ambiguity don't render the whole topic of biological sex ambiguous. It usually isn't difficult to determine.
Have you ever seen a newborn where the legs are fused and there's no genitalia (and only a bit of kidney)? I guess we'd have to do genetic tests to determine sex in those kinds of cases.
99.9% of people will do exactly that. Very few trans people look like the gender they wish to be. If they do then who would stop them?
I’m a card carrying slightly left wing liberal. What consenting adults want to do is fine by me. I see no reason for homosexuals to barred from the same legal institution as heterosexuals.
They are descriptions, not adjectives, when we are defining sex, as opposed to differentiating. It is not a "quality" of a male to be male eg (tautology).
Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype (because we're saying "masculine" and "feminine" but taking a short-cut), though. Maybe not adequately prizing this apart is hurting our discussion. I will try to be clear when I use each in my response.
Quoting Michael
If you think this, I don't think you're adequately participating. Your problem is that "sex" is not binary, but it is. I have shown that it is (well, as far as I need be satisfied anyway. I'm sure there are objections available, but I've canvassed all that have come my way). If this is not the case, most of what you've said seems superfluous and possibly disingenuous? I don't think that, I'm just trying to ascertain whether this claim (that i've quoted immediately above) is actually the case. I will try to answer to both issues...
Male and Female are adjectives when applied to phenotype, and actually standing in for "masculine" and "feminine". That allows a relatively (though, not properly) large grey area as to what traits fall into what bucket (physical, psychological or behavioural i suppose. A perception thing, anyway).
The use of "male" and "female" as reproductive terms is descriptive and not adjective in the way you are saying. "male" and "female" do not admit of degrees, in this context. They either are, or aren't (though ,the whole point is if not 1, then 2 (and no 0s)). When we speak descriptively about, let's say, facial features we can say "That face is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense because we actually mean to say "more masculine" (you can tell, because we say this often when we know the sex, and our expectation has been violated (Statue of Liberty for instance)).
We cannot say "this organism is a bit more male than this one" and be making sense, because there is no degree we could admit under that description.
This may sort out the whole thing. But assuming not.. onward...
Quoting Michael
Rejected, wholesale with a bit of a smirk. We could not call them 'male' unless we understood their reproductive system and could find an analogous place for their counterparts as we have in 'males" and "females". This is because:
Quoting Michael
Disagreed, quite strongly. I think this might be hte case in small slivers of "woke" demographics and the like, but this is absolutely not what is generally understood by those words. We definitely fall back on the heuristic of "looks like a duck, walks like a duck" because we are so incredibly accurate at assessing sex on-sight (more than 93%, it seems). But that is not what we mean. We we mean is that we have assessed the phenotype and assume, via statistical analysis, that this person is "a male" or "a female". We are not, almost ever, saying something akin to "This person's appearance is male" because that makes absolutely no sense. Either, they are male and their appearances adheres, or it is deviant and we need a further assessment to understand whether A. we care, and B. we can know their sex from appearances.
Quoting Michael
I cannot understand that this isn't a bit of satire? I am really, truly not trying to be rude. This seems Monty Python-esque. We call the phenotype male because it is the typical response to SRY-activation in gestation. It is an observational term. We didn't assign it (well, we did in the sense of 'invent the word', but the place it was assigned existed and we just named that place "male"). The same way we didn't "assign" "Lion". It describes something stable and "true".
Quoting fdrake
Serena Williams has some extremely strong words for you. Extremely. (this is true, but I mean to make light.. not start a fight).
Quoting fdrake
Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males. Males cause trauma to those who have been abused by males. It doesn't matter what you think yourself as, or whether you have a piece of paper saying X. You are male. That is dangerous for females who have been abused by males.
That doesn't cover everything, but is, I think, a substantial counter point.
Quoting fdrake
That's fucking wild. Convicted criminals shouldn't (and really, do not) get hte privilege of choosing their incarceration terms. You do not, as a convicted criminal (particularly when the majority seem to be sex crimes (we've been there - I know your position. this is mine)), get to tell others where you're going to serve your term. That is absolutely beyond the pale as far as i'm concerned. There's a reason Isla Bryson was removed.
Quoting fdrake
I think you maybe don't take that issue as seriously as you should. Would you views change if the issue was a domestic abuse shelter or a rape crisis shelter? Please answer, as there are several very interesting follow-ups I'd like to pry into here.
Quoting fdrake
The difference in ratio of males and females who present this risk vastly outweighs an appeal to logical consistency. Your point is taken, but as with sports, women involved have signed up to be involved with women(read: females). Males, and their inherent risk profile are not within that scope and so present an unfair risk rather than a risk that is taken by being a female criminal. Does that maybe clarify at least what the argument is?
Quoting fdrake
There is. Whether this is just that there's a 'unknown" aspect, or whether it is the empirical fact that they are more likely to commit a sex crime than even non-trans males, there is. This is an unavoidable issue on the facts. What we do about it is where the conversation starts. I think this is what frustrates most attempts to come to terms. At least admit hte bloody facts and we can get on with it... sort of thing.
Quoting unenlightened
Sorry about the glibness - but what are you talking about here? Truly don't get it. Are you saying that anyone who doesn't fit typical physical appearance suffers hate? That seems... an extreme overstatement (that is not to say it doesn't occur, at all).
Quoting unenlightened
No need! It was funny :)
Quoting unenlightened
Nope.
Quoting unenlightened
Do you truly think this is what was being said? Or was this used as hyperbole to represent an arbitrary dissatisfaction with your long hair? Because, I can tell you, long hair does not change one's ability to assess sex. That is .... bizarre to claim.
Quoting unenlightened
And this is why I ask the above: for trans people, I have never met a trans person who 'passes'. I've even delved into the internet culture of passing, and I have never been 'got' by someone 'passing'. Granted, that's a situation of scrutiny - which generally wont happen in the real world. But heres the thing: under these laws, if you pass, no one will ask, and you can get on with it. So, that's perfect. But if you don't, then it's not your choice.
Quoting unenlightened
Are you seriously suggesting that the reason for privacy in ablutions is to avoid rape during ablutions? Hygiene is the largest motivating factor, as was the development of private plumbing and the general rise in quality of private homes (thus, not requiring one to perambulate to take a piss cleanly).
Quoting unenlightened
I don't think it's odd at all. 98% of people identify strongly with their sex, and so express that. There is far, far, FAR less oppression and pressure involved in gender presentation, than is currently assumed by activist groups. The areas of the world which have been left the most alone in terms of forcing gender roles (though, a further comment someone pooh-poohs this) have resulted in larger differences between genders. That said, those societies (Scandinavian, generally) actually enforce female representation in many ways. I think that's wrong, but ignoring my stance that clearly shows that social pressure around sex and gender is fine, if you agree with it.
Quoting substantivalism
I don't think so. It might be in terms of predictive power, but every person knows what those two benchmarks are for themselves. Even "norms" differ from person to person within a society.
Quoting substantivalism
I assume you mean sorities - this isn't relevant. My previous comment should clear that up. The "vagueness" is somewhat baked-in to the concept because "other minds" can't be read.
Quoting substantivalism
I want to be careful how I address this, because in some sense I hear, and agree with this - but is this a Tachellesque appeal to empathy for people who fuck kids? Cause, no bro. That said, the bolded is an extremely good point for other reasons: I want to know who my local sex offenders are. When we can't tell who is who, we should be:
Quoting substantivalism
So, it may be we agree entirely.
Quoting substantivalism
I'm not sure you finished your previous thought, but I am a pro-legalization of all non-medically-developed drugs basically. Recreational drugs being legal would let us seek help, provide help and approach produces much more readily.
This is not in any way analogous to the issues before us here.
I think the incidence isn't particularly relevant for exclusion, honestly. The argument roughly goes that the trans woman appears as a man to attendees and is thus unsafe. Which isn't really an argument, but I'm not going to convince you of that.
Regardless, the idea that domestic abuse in itself is committed more often by men is at best misleading. There's a pretty big meta analysis on intimate partner violence papers here.
For size:
For outcome:
Women in the aggregate commit more acts of intimate partner violence and do them more often in relationships.
Notice that this doesn't imply anything about whether trans women should be able to attend domestic abuse support groups...
Quoting here
Yes. The idea of defensive domestic abuse.
I think the major problem with all of this is we are dealing with a fringe minority and so case by case instances being far fewer leads to greater misconceptions. I imagine the interpretation of statistical facts is where Amadeus would make a counter argument.
When it comes to imprisonment my initial reaction would be that violent and sexual crimes means you have effectively crossed a line. If a trans woman goes to prison for any other crime I do not really see any problem with them being placed in a prison with women. However, this should be on a case by case basis not a one rule fits all (as with most criminal convictions).
Probably the most pressing matter - strangely not discussed - is that of employment and persons being passed over simply because they are trans. This is a tricky double-edged sword just as it is with issues of race. Some will try to abuse the system to get what they believe they deserve. Some are taken in by a sense of victimhood.
Overall, it seems this is just a phase people tend to go through (usually in young adulthood). What can actually be done about this? I am at a loss. I guess we just have to keep on discussing, try to listen more effectively, and not get bogged down in semi-redundant specifics too much. Meaning, avoid applying very particular cases to broader representations of societal (dys)function.
Understandable never entails right, yeah.
Quoting I like sushi
Yeah that seems defensible to me. The status quo treats prisoners of particular risk differently regardless of their gender.
Quoting I like sushi
Complexities like that are why I've been trying to talk about people that have obtained a GRC.
Anyone with any kind of sense understands that there are clear physiological advantages for trans women over women. The heart of that kind of debate - and what was being alluded to by fdrake - is that there is clearly a difficulty in knowing where to draw the line.
Personally I think it is more or less a case in sports where there is some contention that the person in question needs to ask themselves what is more important, their sporting career or their gender identity. This is not fair, but life offers up some more severe disadvantages to us than others. Perhaps in the relatively near future genetic engineering will put all this to bed and people can just get on being who they are without restrictions. Until then we just have to discuss and hope we can come to some better understanding.
Well, I think it would be right not me make someone in a fragile state feel unnecessarily vulnerable as it would exacerbate their suffering and lengthen their period of recovery.
So, sometimes it is necessary to take into account people's feelings in regards to their personal experiences. We are talking about more extreme cases here I imagine? I am no expert on the kind of domestic violence and rape cases women suffer, but I would not be surprised to find numerous cases where 'understandable' does equate with 'right' (legal).
Maybe I am wrong though? Often enough the treatment can be more exposure to the cause of the pains?
In my community, it can't be both. Defensive violence is not abuse.
It's really not a good metric. If the majority of relationships that have IPV have two way IPV, "defensive violence" as a concept comes down to "who started it".
And thus presents a risk. I still get the impression you are dismissing women and instead choosing to value to feelings of a mentally aberrant male (which must be hte case to be askance from the physical reality in which you live). The facts give us plenty of reason to exclude and thats exactly why we already do it, Claiming to be a women can't change you being male, so there's actually nothing to be talked about, if you agree males should be separated from females in intimate spaces, generally. If you don't - wow man, that's absolutely horrendous
Quoting fdrake
You skipped to this didn't you? Have a look at relative harms, in that analysis. Hehe. It is utterly preposterous to pretend males and females are on similar footing as regards IPV. That paper shows it. The conclusion is nominal.
Quoting I like sushi
No it's not. They are protected from this in Law in almost every country that it matters.
Quoting I like sushi
No there isn't. Male/female. That's the line.It is the only fair, and universal one. Women in women sports know what they're signing up for competing against women. Don't violate that, and you're good.
Quoting I like sushi
Why not hope that people who have a mental state incongruent with reality are supported in reassessing that mental state to align with reality and thus ameliorate the suffering?
If that's not hte aim, you must think people are born in the wrong body. I would like to know how, but I think that's a cruel joke of a position.
I think you missed my point. How well are these laws enforced? It is a little more important than being able to use a toilet I feel.
Quoting AmadeusD
So you would take the line that it is a choice of career over personal identity? I would agree for sports such as tennis. For other sports I do not know enough about the differences between the sexes. I would imagine so-called cognitive sports like chess or poker are far more open to accepting anyone. In some areas there is no harm at all.
I imagine your only argument here would be to say that poker or chess are not 'sports'? Or are you in favour of men only poker and women only poker? Then there is snooker, which is classed as a sport. It may well be the case that men have some advantages over women in this sport too, yet it is far from obvious how - unlike tennis or football.
In some categories of sport there are mixed sex tournaments as well as individual sex tournaments. If there is no advantage in a sport is it okay for a trans woman to enter a women's tournament? Lets say in chess. If you think it is wrong I just want to know. You can have that opinion.
I think the world is unfair, and that if a trans woman wishes to compete in any hard physical sport at a professional level they should only against other trans women or be a man and compete.
Quoting AmadeusD
I have hope for many people on this forum - including myself and you. We are all pretty much resistant to uncomfortable realities as we wish to survive relatively intact rather than fractured.
I recall a documentary where someone had his leg amputated because the leg felt like it wasn't his. It clearly caused him a lot of distress and he knew the reality of the situation. Nevertheless, he had the leg removed and was happy about this.
If you support antinatalist ideas based on 'harm' I find your stance here rather confusing in this light. If the only way to ameliorate suffering is to allow people to live in a certain space in the world - within certain limitations - then what is the problem? The question seems to be more about the extent of the limitations (of which we all necessarily have to live by to lesser or greater degrees).
There are cultural issues for women that bar them from competing on a level playing field. Access to facilities, not being accepted etc.
To encourage women to participate it makes sense to have a female only category even if there are no physical advantages in a certain sport or pursuit.
It would be difficult to find a sport or pursuit where the physical and cultural advantages of men are not significant.
Quoting I like sushi
A trans woman will have the same advantages that a man has had when growing up. Why should a male be allowed to compete because they identify as a woman?
The term "intersex" exists for a reason. Human biology is complex, and English vocabulary does not fully account for this complexity, and so the suggestion that the terms "biological male" and "biological female" each describe some unambiguous and mutually exclusive biological property that every human has shows a misunderstanding of both biology and language.
Take true hermaphroditism:
Perceived risk isn't real risk.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, I didn't skip it.
You were arguing in terms of relative frequency of committing IPV given gender, and that including someone who counts as a man in a domestic abuse support group is bad on that basis, since "Domestic abuse is overwhelmingly perpetrated by males.", and I showed you a meta analysis which refutes the claim.
If the playing field is level. That was my point. If there are women's, men's and unisex categories, then I think it is worth arguing that women's only events are open to trans women too. Otherwise the reasoning you use about "cultural issues" seems to apply for women but not for trans women.
When it comes to physical sports I am generally against trans women competing as trans women in women's sports. For cases where there is no discernable difference (non-physical to low end physical sports), and there are currently men competing against women in tournaments, I see no reason to bar trans women from women's events. Realistically we would be talking about one or two very passionate people interested in competing with other women as if they are a woman. What harm could this possibly cause?
True. The evidence in the article I cited shows that men usually start it.
I don't believe that's what it says. It says:
IE that IPV is usually reciprocal. Having experienced it does not mean "he starts it", nor does it mean whenever "she does it", that it's defense.
True. But men are more likely to engage in coercive control and stalking. Men are more likely to engage in sexual violence. Women sustain more injuries and more severe injuries than men. These facts are not consistent with a narrative where it's unclear who "started it."
While this is basically a fact of reality only a fool would dispute, one could, hypothetically, argue that "engaging" and "attempting" vs. being able to successfully fulfill said attempts fully and powerfully to the fullest degree of intent, are the true differences to distinguish.
I don't think it can be.
Quoting I like sushi
Why? Why can they not compete in the men's (or open) category?
The cultural issues for women are not the same as for trans. I don't consider the trans issues the same at all.
Quoting I like sushi
Generally? I think biological males competing against women is unfair and can be dangerous. It also, will discourage women's participation in sport.
Quoting I like sushi
Why can't they compete in the men's/open category. Why the need to participate in women only competition?
Quoting I like sushi
Practically, you end up with biological males competing against women. I do not think that is fair or equitable
It was said, on several occasions, such that I developed a stock response. I guess you are too young to have experienced the rigidity of gender norms that used to prevail.
Quoting AmadeusD
No, I am seriously suggesting that there is a strong taboo against exposing genitals; particularly to the opposite sex, as if visual contact were dangerous. (That it is not dangerous can be attested by any naturist.)
Quoting AmadeusD
We express what we are obliged to cover up. It's entirely normal of course and almost universal — for humans. But humans are weird. If we want everyone to know our sex, why hide the parts that distinguish it most clearly?
Why?
Quoting frank
All child abusers are less likely to be killed in a women’s prison. Do you put them all there?
What have I missed?
Because in Godzilla vs. Tokyo, Godzilla doesn't have a scratch on him when the coercive control, rape, and severe physical abuse started.
No.
If you can find any data about the risk factors of kaiju committing domestic abuse, let me know.
Ok :up:
Why not? They are at risk
You can contact your state legislature if you're concerned.
Im not concerned in the slightest.
I'm not either. I'm glad they have an interdisciplinary team to make the decisions instead of the local mob.
I would prefer men and women to be kept separate. If the law states that isn’t necessary then so be it. Happily in Uk, they keep penises away from women’s prisons. It will be interesting to see how the recent ruling will affect the issue.
Huh. We're more woke than you guys, and I'm in a red state. Although, I have a feeling our medium and max security prisons are more violent than yours.
You do put an awful lot of people behind bars.
We're crazy as fuck.
Always fascinating but I don’t think I’ll be visiting again any time soon.
The Grand Canyon is cool. Very touristy though.
Hey Rogue,
I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.
Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway.
Clinton and Harris were the only two female candidates for president, no? Both were pretty terrible candidates. Here in Canada, we had a female PM, briefly. She too was not a great candidate.
I don't know if that's the right question. I think the US would totally elect a female president today, were a strong candidate to appear.
the makeup of congress and the Fortune500 is of interest to McKinsey and technocratic neoliberals, but like Adolph Reed and Walter Benn Michaels argue, what does diversity in elite circles due to reduce inequality as a whole? Nothing.
Overall, I think the project of wokeness is neoliberal and technocratic, serving as a substitute for meaningful class-based social justice.
What do you think?
You are in office and the public demands you don't sit on your a**. What do you do?
Quoting AmadeusD I agree, there should be a public database of those who have committed offenses. . . and those who haven't.
Violent and discordant tendencies demand and rather revoke a sense of attorney client protection or medical privacy when it concerns this as such.
If someone has said pedophilic tendencies, mentioned rape fantasies to a therapist, diagnosed as suffering from high order anti-social disorder, is a fire-bug, etc. Have it out there. Nothing to fear from transparency to the unlawful and the sickly of our society.
That way nature can take its proper course.
Quoting AmadeusD It's how to move beyond them. We already understand well enough how to legally punish those who violate said norms.
In fact, here is a common case of mob lynching in Mexico but as regards accused child kidnappers.
You don't need new focus in that area as we can easily arm ourselves.
It's in. . . finding and cataloging those who haven't been unlawful. . . yet that is.
You and the other person I responded to are too focused on being retroactive. It’s the most common response to these issues and the easiest. It's in being proactive and preventative that the true difficulty lies. That is where true societal growth can be had.
Did you guys have anything like separate-but-equal? I see systemic racism as simply meaning there are many racist people in positions of power in all walks of life that reflexively make decisions against black people. They may not even be aware they're doing it. For example, if two people are applying for an apartment [ETA to add: "all else being equal"], and one is named Mary and the other Shaniqua, there's a bias against the Shaniqua's of the world. In my lifetime, blacks couldn't be priests in the Mormon church. In my mom's lifetime, blacks were legally discriminated against in the South and couldn't go to the same schools as whites. She remembers the Emmet Till lynching. I think pervasive racism like that takes a long time to wash out of a society, if it ever does.
In my line of work (teaching), I've worked with several very racist teachers. They got along well with black students who behaved themselves, but if you were black in their class, and you were a troublemaker, there was no mercy. And this is Southern California we're talking about.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
The fact we've only had two female candidates for president in the history of the country is pretty indicative of how this country feels about women in leadership roles. Growing up in the 70's and 80's there was just this understanding that the president was going to be a man. Geraldine Ferraro made a big splash when she became the first female VP candidate and her ticket went on to get absolutely destroyed in 1984. It was the worst electoral vote shellacking ever. That was it for female high-office candidates for another 24 years. The Democrat party is OK with women in power now, but Republicans remain overwhelmingly male-centric. In the U.S. Senate, out of 53 Republican Senators, 43 are men. The GOP is heavily evangelical Christian, so the fact they're not comfortable with women leaders isn't surprising.
There are 10 states in America with abortion laws with no exceptions for rape. Does Canada have anything like that? And the fact that Trump could survive the Access Hollywood tape, and win, says a lot. Are you familiar with Andrew Tate and his popularity in MAGA world?
What do you think 'systemic racism' means?
My point is that bathrooms and sports are separated by biology, not gender. If sex and gender are separate then why is it so difficult to make a meaningful distinction between them?
Quoting substantivalism
Yet we use xray machines to determine who has a weapon before entering a building or airplane. Similar devices can be added to the entrances of bathrooms where it detects if one is a male or female. There doesn't even need to be a human being to monitor it, so we don't need humans looking in anyone's pants before entering a public restroom.
Quoting substantivalism
For the purpose of taking a piss or shit, yes, people should be separated. When it comes to determining what is best for the future of humanity, and a great many other things, no.
A meaningful question to ask is why we have such separations.
For sports it's to give biological women a competitive chance, and that may be a reason to exclude trans women from women's sports. But then what about trans men? They're biological women, so ought they compete in women's sports? Or do we say that trans men who have taken hormones to transition into a man must compete in men's sports?
For bathrooms it may be something to do with "decency" or safety, but that may be a reason to allow trans women (esp. post-surgery) to use women's bathrooms and trans men (esp. post-surgery) to use men's bathrooms, and so bathrooms ought not be separated by biology but by something else (e.g. outward appearance, even if "artificial"). Of course, the difficulty then comes in how such things can be policed. Ought everyone be subject to genital inspection before and/or after using a public bathroom?
Why can't separate stalls, with walls and doors that reach to the floor, suffice? I seen no reason to segregate hand-washing. I've been to bars that have two separate toilet facilities, but a common hand-washing area.
All it needs is a tampon dispenser, a few urinals, toilets, a larger stall for those with disabilities, and an infant changing station in there as well.
Why do you separate them? I'll answer that. . . its because of the male on women assaults'. That is "why", else we wouldn't.
Now we need to solve this male assault problem so that such places are statistically not considered a danger. Are you going to propose a solution now. . . after so many posts not doing so?
Quoting Harry Hindu So. . . your solution as to why male assaults is so prevalent and how to solve this epidemic is to just put cameras or xray machines facing bathroom entrances.
So is the only way to solve the male asymmetry in assaults' is to use women as bait and wait for these offenders to jail themselves after they have or just nearly did assault someone? Brilliant strategy there.
Quoting Harry Hindu They should be separated because men are notorious rapists. . . how do we reduce the number of potential rapists? Why are you silent on solving the male assault epidemic?
@Michael Look out! One trans-person is already using all bathrooms at once simultaneously. So says this reputable news source.
Here, I google searched for you and found an editorial from the NIH which says,
. . . and. . .
Literally some more searching on the topic found me this article here. Where they talk about preventative instructive programs for high school athletes or young adults in general such as the Manhood 2.0 project. You can get the whole pdf here on said curriculum.
Here is one primarily concerned with college men as a preventative program against committing sexual assault themselves as much as not being a bystander or how to care for those who have been raped.
Is it good, bad, what is missing? What else are we supposed to do?
One could also argue that whoever owns the toilet should decide. If it's a public toilet, it belongs to the tax payers, so let them vote and decide how it should be used.
If you decide not to do it that way, the question would be: why not? On what basis do we reject the public will? Is it because the public is danger of violating someone's rights?
Whites only
Civil rights.
No, I've never personally delivered a case of ambiguous genetalia. I had a close call once, but it ended up being a clerical error (of some importance). Long story...
Not in sport and not in society when it comes to social norms around women’s right to certain exclusive places.
What about social, emotional and mental sex are different? I just see these as outmoded sexist tropes. Men tend toward traditional masculine pursuits but those that don’t are still men. Women who tend toward masculine pursuits are still women. There still needs to be a distinction for sport and changing/toilet/shelters. For fairness, for safety and for dignity. I don’t see this as controversial.
For the sake of clarity, if there is no discernable difference, then what is the harm of trans women entering a competition for women if that is where they feel they belong? To repeat. I am talking about situations where there are mixed, female only and male only competitions.
Perhaps the reasoning is not as obvious to others as I first thought. If the choice is effectively arbitrary then it does not matter where people compete. In fact, it makes little sense to have male or female only competitions other than to follow a cultural tradition. Given that trans women classify themselves as a types of women (if not biologically female) and wish to be treated as trans women - not men in dressed - then the only reason I can see to bar them is pure prejudice.
Of course, you could argue that a man could join the women's competition too. Why not? It would make a whole lot more sense if there were no such categorical distinction if the differences in ability between the sexes was non-existent. The one situation where most of the push back comes from is that feminist movements to bring women into sports after centuries of suppression could suffer from a few trans women competing and winning. Such could be viewed as males actively suppressing women in sports. This is understandable to some degree (as financial rewards may be given to trans women instead of women). I do wonder if trans women would be willing to compete for the sake of competing without taking any monetary reward - it would be a nice gesture maybe. What also needs to be understood is that suppression of a smaller minority can be seen as just as needless. Nuances are nuances. My interest in more analytic than anything else. I am neither a woman nor a a trans woman. I have travelled enough around the world to see different attitudes to the phenomenon of transgenderism. One of the most striking things I have experienced was in Manila. There it is VERY unusual if you do not come across several trans women everyday. Why is it so common there? I have no idea. it seems strange that in a Catholic country where there is suppression of homosexuality in the power high up, that at the day-to-day experience it is more common than anywhere else I have ever visited.
Now, in comparison, if we are talking about domestic abuse where some women feel actively threatened by trans women it does make sense to also use some basic level of respect and tolerate the threat they feel if they have literally suffered severe abuse and it makes them mentally unstable and insecure.
I am NOT talking about any of this as a one way street. Plenty of trans women do not think of themselves as female and actual women, they are quite happy to state they merely wish to be treated as women, within certain limitations, and respect as a human being.
Trans women who say they are literally women do not really have my support.
Trans women who say they wish merely to be treated as if they are women have my support.
Understandably there are many grey areas and I would be against either of the above statements depending on the circumstances.
Circumstances and case by case analysis matter.
Honestly, I do not think I have a lot more to say about this. It is one curiosity of many for me not an obsession.
I replied saying that there isn't a sport where there is no discernable difference and if there was there was no point in having a female category. If there was a female category in such a sport why would a trans woman need or wish to compete in that category?
There was no side stepping.
Quoting I like sushi
I agree 100% but it never is. IMHO.
Quoting I like sushi
Why is it prejudice to not recognise trans women as women? They are not women.
Quoting I like sushi
I am not taking it as a one way street. Trans women can dress, act and be whoever they wish to be. They just are not women. Biology is far from the determinant factor. It is in sports but everything else, society molds us all. If it were socially acceptable to be naked around each other no one would bat an eyelid. However, it is not. If all men were respectful towards women and women had nothing to fear and could walk wherever they wished at any time of day or night then there would be no need for women only spaces. However, the world is not like that.
In sport biology matters. Everything else it is societal factors that need considering. If all women were happy to accomodate males in their exclusive places then all is well.
Yes. Trans women are a special case of males though. The reason trans women are trans women is because they are trans women. They are not women. They are not men. They are viewed as being biological men but they are not men in the social sense.
It is uncivil to treat someone who wishes to be treated one way another way simply because it displeases you. If it is about fairness - say in sports - fair enough. If it is about treating someone with respect and dignity I see no real issue. We are not talking about delusional people, we are talking about people who feel a certain way and only want a modicum of social acceptance ... of course there are always agitators though.
If I was transgendered I am not sure how I would feel about all the attention right now. I guess it is good in one way and bad in another. The issue used as a political weapon does at least mean it has crested the hill of general acceptance.
I was honestly expecting the next big -ism in social debate to be ageism.
In what way are they special? Over and above any other special case?
Quoting I like sushi
Agreed 100%
Quoting I like sushi
Do you think some women want trans women excluded from their exclusive places because it displeases them? Do you see no discomfort or risk from allowing males in changing rooms etc?
Quoting I like sushi
What about treating women with dignity and respect?
Quoting I like sushi
I think they are deluded to think of themselves as a woman and expect women to accomodate their wishes.
Quoting I like sushi
Not just agitators but weirdos who will impersonate a genuine trans women for nefarious gratifications.
If they've had surgery, how would you know?
What about trans men (esp. after hormones and surgery)? Ought they use women's changing rooms because they're biological women?
If a person looks like a woman then there would be no issue. Society isn't spending billions on gender recognition measures to eradicate men who look like women from using bathrooms. Most trans women do not look like women.
I see no issue with trans men using the male changing room. They pose no potential threat and men have a different attitude to females in their private spaces. Women in our society are more vulnerable and there are social mores that mean they are uncomfortable with men around these places.
If a trans man wants to use a women's restroom they have every right should they wish. No idea why they would.
Well then now we get into murky territory. Who gets to decide whether or not a trans woman looks enough like a woman to use the women's changing room? Different people might have different opinions. And sometimes cisgender women are mistaken for men.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
If a trans man (after having surgery) is indistinguishable from a cis man, then what rationale is there for allowing trans men in women's changing rooms but not cis men? We don't carry out genetic testing whenever someone enters the room, so no third party is going to know. The cis woman isn't going to know that the muscular, bearded person changing next to them was actually born a woman, and is going to be as uncomfortable with them being there as they would be a cis man being there.
I think in 99.99% of the time it is obvious. There has been no issue. No murky territory.
Why would manly looking women now be an issue since it hasn't been before?
Anyway, you can have the last word. Bye have fun
Because they are a woman. They have every right to use a female space.
I agree.
Bothered? I'm discussing a topic on a message board. The topic being males in female only spaces.
But thanks for letting me have the last word. Not sure what I've said that isn't logical and equitable.
Because of the anti-trans agenda. There is such an uproar in some circles against trans women using women's bathrooms that masculine-looking cis women have faced abuse.
Cis Woman Mistaken as Transgender Records Being Berated in Bathroom
Cis woman confronted by police officers in Arizona Walmart restroom for looking too masculine
But why do we have this female space? You've said before that it's because cis women would be uncomfortable sharing a changing room with biological men. But they'll also be uncomfortable sharing a changing room with "passing" trans men. So if "making cis women uncomfortable" is a good reason to exclude biological men from these changing rooms it must also be a good reason to exclude "passing" trans men from these changing rooms.
I don't see it in real life in UK but there is always nutters that use issues for their own agenda.
I agree and I doubt that trans men would use the woman's bathroom BUT if they insisted then they have every right to do so. They are female.
, ,
Quoting Michael
Your post just re-iterates my point - that there is no meaningful distinction between gender and sex. If one "affirms" their gender by taking hormones and having surgery, then gender is biological, not social. This would be like "affirming" an anorexic's distorted view of their body by prescribing them diet pills and performing bariatric surgery on them. The problem is not "men" using women's bathroom. The problem is affirming another's delusions for the purpose of using them as political pawns.
"Men" and "women" are terms we use to distinguish not just sexes but species as well. Men and women are similar to "buck" and "doe", "drone" and "queen", etc. in that they distinguish the males and females of different species.
If you read the rest of my post, you would see that I had said that we can have body scanners at public bathroom entrances to scan for biological features, not gendered ones - whatever that is if it is not a synonym for "sex".
In a society where it is against the law for people to walk around naked, we have adopted rules for the purpose of finding mates in a society where our bodies are covered. Trans people are uprooting these agreed upon rules for how females and males present themselves in society for the purpose of distinguishing between men and women so that heterosexuals and homosexuals (which are sexual orientations, not gender orientations) can find proper mates. Is a homosexual man still a homosexual if they are attracted to female dressed as a man? Is it right for a trans person to fool a homosexual into having intimate relations with them?
What would trans-gender mean in a society with no clothes - where we all walk around naked?
Quoting substantivalism
I don't see how your response follows from my proposed solution. Are you saying everyone on an airplane is being used as bait for a terrorist hijacking? This is what you are saying, not me. If you want to insist on affirming delusions so men can get close to women in their safe-spaces, that is your position, not mine. I don't carry guns onto airplanes and have no intent on hijacking one, yet I am still subject to a search before boarding an airplane.
If someone born without a penis believes that they have a penis then they would be suffering from a delusion, but this isn't what trans men believe.
Quoting Harry Hindu
What would it scan for? Chromosomes? Genitals? What if someone has XX chromosomes and a penis?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't know what the etiquette is regarding transgender people having one night stands, but I'd presume that if they present as men when clothed but have a vagina then this will come up in conversation before they start getting naked.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Which society do you live in? Because there are plenty of places where it isn't against the law for people to walk around naked.
For example:
[quote]Firstly, it is not an offence to be naked in public in England and Wales. However, it can become an offence if it can be proven that the naked individual caused harassment, alarm or distress to another person. In the absence of any sexual context and intention to cause alarm and distress – being naked in public is within the law.
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) notes in its guidance that every case should be considered on its own facts and merits and ‘a balance needs to be struck between the naturist’s right to freedom of expression and the right of the wider public to be protected from harassment, alarm and distress’. In assessing intention, there must be a serious reason to believe that the naked individual intended to cause alarm and distress.
Then why do trans people modify there biology? If merely believing something is an affirmation, then there would be no need to modify one's biology.
Quoting Michael
As I pointed out earlier in this thread that you appeared to have ignored, there are five traits that determine one's sex. You are one or the other based on having a majority (three or more) traits of a male or female.
How do you determine one's intention in this case? And this does not address the point I made in explaining what a trans person would be in a society where there are no clothes, and everyone is naked.
Firstly, not all do. Secondly, you'll have to ask them, not me. Thirdly, the same can be asked about anyone who undergoes cosmetic surgery, whether transgender or not.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's a long discussion and I haven't read every post.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm not a legal professional. I don't know how prosecutors prove intent beyond reasonable doubt.
But you are speaking for them, so you appear to know what they think. It's ironic to see you speak for them up to the point when you are faced with difficult questions.
Quoting Michael
Yet you are notified of responses to your posts. If notifications are not working, maybe you should notify an admin.
The point is that in continuing to make the "bathroom" argument you are merely trying to address a symptom of the problem, not the cause - which is affirming someone's delusions for political capital.
I don't need to understand why they wish to transition to understand that trans men do not believe that they have a penis. Indeed, the very fact that they transition (if they do) proves that they know that they don't have a penis.
So it's unclear what delusion you think they're suffering from.
Quoting Harry Hindu
[s]Yes, but is this post of yours that listed the biological criteria a reply to me? If not then I wouldn't have been notified of it.[/s]
Found the post, was a reply to me. I forgot about it over my 4 day absence from this discussion. Apologies.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So were some hypothetical person to have:
1. XX chromsomes
2. A penis
3. Testes
4. Low testosterone and high estrogen
5. Breasts
Then they have 3 female traits and 2 male traits and so are female and ought use the women's changing rooms, compete in women's sports, etc.?
Is that always a problem? People often have trivial delusions that their friends and co-workers humor. For example, someone might think they're a great singer or deep thinker and they're not and nobody has the heart to tell them the truth.
Your assertion is consistent with my view that part of the issue is semantics. Language can drift, and there's no right/wrong to it. So what if we move toward using "sex" in the biological sense, and "gender" to denote some self-described social role?
Accepting such semantics allows us to focus on more serious issues, such as sports (it is unfair to biological women to compete against biological males). A bigger deal would be misrepresentation: if I were young and single, I would not consider having a romantic relationship with a transgender woman (biological male) - so I consider it improper for such a person to present themselves to me in that false way. Other than that, I couldn't care less how they dress, act, or what pronouns they prefer.
A third big issue is the difficult problem parents of transgender have to deal with. Even if (as you said) it's a delusion, it could be a life-long one, and the optimal path forward is not clear.
I was casual friends with a transgender woman a few years ago. My wife and I would hang out with at a wine bar that we frequented. When she committed suicide, we learned that her parents had never accepted her choice and this resulted in some serious emotional problems. I dare say their approach didn't work.
Do they have a right to use the women's changing rooms?
That's according to Harry-biology, but other biological determinants have been suggested, which is why, according to me, there remains biological ambiguity, of which your hypothetical is an example. Why we cannot in such a case say "three fifths female and two fifths male" instead of forcing such people onto one or other side of the rather arbitrary line remains mysterious to me. It smacks of the one drop rule to me.
...that they should have a penis.
Again, why would one need to transition if gender is separate from sex? Doesn't the fact that some do and some don't means that we're talking about two separate conditions, not one, yet we put those that do transition and those that do not under the same umbrella of "trans-gender".
Quoting Michael
What I have said would support this, yes. Is there a problem? Notice though that we have moved from talking about trans-gender to trans-sexual, or intersex. How can this be if gender and sex are distinct?
Quoting unenlightened
Quoting unenlightened
I would hardly call 99.9% vs. 0.1% a biological ambiguity. In nature, this is about has unambiguous you can get. This smacks of confusing mutations (mistakes in copying genes from one generation to the next) as biological ambiguities within a species.
Quoting Relativist
It's not semantics. It's politics.
The type of reasoning the left side of the spectrum is practicing here is no different than the reasoning the right makes when advocating societal change based on their unfounded beliefs. The leftists here have no problem questioning the claims of the right when it comes to the existence of God when the right is proposing changing society in ways that "affirms" their beliefs. The leftists are failing to question the claims of a transgender person when they claim to be a man or woman when they are the opposite.
This is no different than the religious right advocating for God in public schools when they cannot even provide evidence for the existence of God. You are assuming the person's premise that they are a woman or man and then using that to affect societal change.
This is typical of political and religious discussions where one side abandons logic and reason because they have an emotional attachment to the claims they are making, or are wishing to score political capital.
I am being logically consistent in this regard. I question the claims of the right and the left when they are using those claims for the basis of societal change but cannot provide any good evidence that any of their claims are true.
Quoting RogueAI
It is when they are using their claims as the basis for changing society. Did you friend demand they receive an Grammy?
Changing society is often a good thing. I think society should be more tolerant of trans people. It's a lot better now than it was when I was growing up in the 70's and 80's.
I’m very tolerant and trans people can do whatever they wish if it is within the law. What they cannot do is infringe the rights of women. Why should people be tolerant of that?
There's a political dispute about semantics. This portion of the dispute is a waste of time- I mentioned some serious issues; this isn't one of them- it's a distraction.
There are social norms that needed to change. It's not illegal to point and laugh at a crossdresser [ETA I used this term, because I was going to make a point about how in the 70's and 80's people did exactly that when they saw crossdressers], but it's still wrong and polite society should not tolerate that behavior.
I agree with this.
You tell me. You seem to think that there are good reasons to separate bathrooms according some biological binary. What are those reasons? Perhaps when we examine those reasons we might conclude that, actually, we ought separate according to genitals, and that DNA, hormones, and mammary glands are irrelevant.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I don't understand what you're asking here.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Because of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria]gender dysphoria[url].
Hi Rogue,
The implicit bias stuff has been shown to be pretty unhelpful overall. Turns out results for early experiments were overstated and overly simplified. It's one of those studies that has to be taken with a grain of salt, which I think responsible social scientists did at the time, but even when I recall the idea first emerging in school PDs 20 years, responsible social scientists were increasingly scarce.
Not that there aren't some good examples. Coleman Hughes talks about the 'call back' studies for jobs that resonate with your point about names, citing them as one of the few genuinely robust examples of what he too perceives as an exaggerated premise. (going by memory, I lent his book to a neighbour, but I think I got this right). Those results are known to be robust.
Another problem with the concept of implicit bias is that it lends itself to a cultural of managerial control. I've seen a lot of fair questions around this concept by admin with a 'don't you want to help _____'?
And we don't see implicit bias informing meaningful self-reflection within marginalized communities themselves, which of course have their own issues with various isms. You'd think people genuinely motivated by woke principle would be self-reflective by nature, that seems the steel-man premise of the ideology.
It is far to easy to see the majority of people using such language to enforce managerial prerogative are acting in bad faith as they do so. I have certainly seen dozens of examples of this in action in high school teaching over a 20 year career, to go along with the myriad examples of, say, Justin Trudeau dismissing questions around racism as 'racist', to go along with powerful journalism and academic critique from across the political spectrum against wokeness, from Coleman Hughes and Glenn Loury and even Christopher Rufo on the right, to Marixsts like Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Reed Jr.
Have you read any woke 'scholarship'? I've been able to swallow reading a representative few over the years, and it's hard to see any case for calling most of it 'scholarship' at all. I believe the vast majority of 'social scientists' in the modern sense would explicitly state that their primary purpose is advocacy. They reject and 'dismantle' objectivity. I can't see how this wouldn't impact scholarship negatively, and as you see with, say, the Sokal Hoax 30 years ago, this has been true for decades.
I started seeing 'wokeness' way back in the mid/late 90s as a humanities undergrad and then in teacher's college, and by the time I was teaching in the Toronto HS system in the early 2000s, it was already creeping in. My generation of teachers started to teach kids, including the newest generation of young teachers in public schools right now, to spread from the woke gospel. It feels like a failure of social science to me, speaking a a psych/soc/phil/history student and teacher, rather than an 'academic'
Also in both our lifetimes, we saw the first black president, legalized gay marriage and pretty massive improvements of standards of living for billions worldwide. Coleman Hughes again (just read it, so it's fresh) called out 'the Myth of no Progress', and John McWhorter has argued this as well. To both of these black men, to suggest this is an insult to those that experienced the worst of US discrimination. It is simply not true to suggest that 'inherited trauma' is equivalent to slavery, or that anything you use to fill in the blank '______ is the new Jim Crow' is comparable to the real Jim Crow.
Just examples, not suggesting you go this far in post!
Quoting RogueAI
I'm sorry to hear that. I can't say that I ever worked with a racist teacher, nor ever suspected as much. And I have worked with teachers who failed on a bunch of different moral issues. Just not that one, and I've only taught in super-diverse urban schools.
I know more about California than many states, having been there to visit my brother in LA. Talking to him over the years has me up on the basics, I guess, and it seems easy to suggest there are some problems related to woke policy in the state? Has that penetrated the schools?
What scares me about the teaching ranks is that we are way more privileged than our students, and I question our own class/education privilege in expecting, say, a low literacy group of teens to be able to master 'new' pronouns without having even mastered the old ones?
Quoting RogueAI
We are similar to you guys in some ways, but very different in others, abortion being one. I think the major challenge to American politics is the forced binary of only two parties. We have a few, although only two with actual federal leadership potential, and that seems to diffuse the concentration of extremist views on issues like abortion that I see in the US generally; the fact that, say, GOP leadership is way out of touch with the majority of their own voters being an example.
So nothing like that. Some Liberals tried scare-mongering that our Conservative candidate for PM would restrict access to abortions, but that's just cheap political BS. They wouldn't touch it even if the majority wanted to, which itself is highly unlikely.
I know more about Tate than I should for someone who is almost entirely off social media and not currently working or participating much in the world. Something of a hermit.
What I see in Tate, and saw in the Access Hollywood tape, is elite entitlement first and foremost, which manifests in hateful misogyny. I don't think that sort of misogyny can exist without the power of elite class-based entitlement. Obviously, other forms of misogyny can and do proliferate more or less depending on confounding variables like social class. And non elites do act like this too.
It's just that I wouldn't infer from elite, entitled misogyny about the nature of say, poor, patriarchal misogyny.
The angry incel in the basement is a problem, but a frame like 'patriarchy' doesn't do much to explain how those opposite ends of the spectrum of class could experience something meaningfully similar from this term UNLESS you actually use intersectional thought to consider class intersections .
This conclusion, of course, does not fit within the 'white supremacy' framework. But like my fave article title from the 2010s implies, to 'Try explaining white privilege to a poor white person' is to see where popular applications of the theory fall apart, morally speaking.
Reed Jr. and Michaels' "No Politics but Class Politics" really solidified me on these anti-woke beliefs - these guys are the two Marxist profs, one black, one a white Jew, and their take is that wokeness is essentially a tool of social control wielded by technocratic neoliberal elites across the political spectrum.
And given that boys have been falling behind in schools for decades, I fear that woke teaching is actually exacerbating boys sense of alienation, as we see in Richard Reeves latest book. And that guy is no radical.
Premising masculinity itself as inherently toxic is nuts to me, as an educator of freakin' children, and yes, it is fair to suggest that this IS how masculinity is presented in some classrooms. I don't mean to suggest that this worst-case scenario is therefore a default assumption you can make about discussing masculinity critically. This can be done well, but like any teaching, it can be done poorly, ignorantly, unskillfully, whatever, and the consequences of getting it wrong are leading to boys turning to the hideous Tate's of the world.
Sorry for the long answer! I'm rusty at human interaction ....
Am I onto anything here? Missing something?
The right to pee without any biological males around?
Hello night,
I think I have a pretty standard understanding of the phrase. Certainly, when I see it used, I read it to refer to, say "any 'system' having biases implicit within it, biases which naturally reflect those of the powerful agents within the system, past and present, and that manifest in the structure and nature of these systems maintaining said biases, as long as they continue to reinforce self-beneficial power structures".
Or something like that. But these sorts of terms are intentionally vague, which to me is part of the problem.
As a high school teacher for the past 20 years, I certainly saw no actual 'evidence' of any significant 'structural racism', aside from 'differential outcomes', which I do not believe are evidence enough on their own for this explanation to work.
Open to disagreement on my use of the term or thoughts on my arguments!
Manners can always improve and I think the world (well where I reside) is very tolerant of people and their life choices.
Seems a reasonable request
That doesn't cash out as a right, though.
You seem to think there are good reasons to change what has worked. The only reasons you provide is to point at 0.1% of the population of intersex people and being logically inconsistent with assuming the claims of some delusions but not others without question.
I would love for there to be an actual intersex person with the traits you provided to speak to and hear what they have to say. You seem to think they would be easy to find. I'm not worried about that small fraction of society. I'm more worried about the much larger portion that preys one women.
Quoting RogueAI
I am tolerant of anyone who keeps their delusions to themselves - whether it be believing in a God or believing you're a woman in a man's body - and not expect others to change in ways to affirm their delusion.
Quoting Relativist
Incorrect. You want to discuss the symptom while I want to focus on the cause. If you don't value logical consistency and questioning ALL extraordinary claims that are being made, then what's the use?
There is no logical inconsistency in the semantics, if sex is defined as biological and gender is defined as what is presented and (presumably) felt. My sense is that this won't catch on, because many are like you: unwilling to accept the semantics. As I indicated initially, that's the most trivial aspect of the TG issue.
I agree with a lot of what you said before this, but I wanted to expand on this. Obama's victory was so traumatizing to a large segment of white society that they had to "other" him with outlandish conspiracy theories that many still believe to this day (birtherism). It got so ridiculous that Obama tried to quell the controversy by producing his own birth certificate. I believe that a lot of whites saw the election of Obama as irrefutable proof that their time as king of the mountain was coming to an end and they went into denial mode. They did it again in 2020 when they couldn't believe their great white hope could lose to Joe Biden, so the election was obviously rigged. I know Trump has some crossover appeal from black and hispanic men, so this isn't true of all his voters, but I'm mainly talking about the evangelical whites who literally see him as heaven sent.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Yes. We have to monitor who we suspend very carefully or we would get investigated by the justice department (not a danger with Trump in office) and/or lose funding from California.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Most of my kids post-Covid are two grade levels behind in reading. Mastering pronouns is indeed quite a challenge for them.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
School is hard for my 3rd grade boys. I carve out a lot of breaks throughout the day because they have trouble sitting still. My female principal banned football because the boys were playing "too rough". That really bugged me.
If a biological male wants you to use "she" and "her" do you refuse?
No link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, study finds
Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime
Prohibiting transgender people from accessing bathrooms puts them at added risk of harassment
If you're concerned about people's safety, just let trans men use men's bathrooms and trans women use women's bathrooms.
We stop homegrown terrorists AND MAKE SURE THEY DO NOT ARISE TO BEGIN WITH. You are tackling the first part and adding nothing new to it as its been so focused on for my entire life time legally, morally, as well as politically. The latter is preventative and doesn't really get much publicity. By your responses you are seemingly unable to actually deal with the second part of this problem. Ergo, the former WILL CONTINUE UNTIL YOU SOLVE THE LATTER!
Quoting Harry Hindu Is it right for women to be sexually assaulted in mixed sex work places because it does happen (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7092813/) even if you regard it as percentage wise insignificant. Are you we supposed to now separate out work places by policy or LAW by sex?
We separate out jails by racial segregation as well to mitigate against harm potentially which may arise by gang affiliation which is usually correlated with a particular racial class. Should we also extend this segregation in LAW or public policy to mitigate against the prevalence of conflict among mixed racial communities?
__________________________________________________________________________________
The only reason @Harry Hindu that you would separate any number of social/biological/cultural classes is if you thought the dangers posed by having them mixed together outweighed any societal equity. HOWEVER, once that segregation is in place YOU HAVE TO SOLVE THE REASON IT AROSE. Not be a child and wipe your hands of it.
We stop homegrown terrorists and PREVENT THEM FROM ARISING by societal/cultural preventative strategies.
We jail rapists and PREVENT THEM FROM ARISING by societal/cultural preventative strategies.
We jail those who commit drug offences and PREVENT THEM FROM ARISING by societal/cultural preventative strategies.
@Harry Hindu we split them up and now you are going to propose a solution to the rape issue as that is the only reason why we split them up to begin with unless you have another legitimate reason.
Or is there only one kind of response you can give and then you scuttle away.
At least we both agree with the feminists then about the danger that men pose.
It's really more of not wanting to take off your pants with any males around as that would include cases in the locker room as well.
Right. As far as I can tell it's not a matter of rights. It's just up to the community's sentiments.
That's not the issue here. The issue is men that are not trans entering women's bathrooms and locker rooms. The ultimate issue is assuming that extraordinary claims with no evidence are true.
Again, if gender is merely a feeling, then that is all you need to be one gender or the other. The need to use one bathroom or the other would be irrelevant if all that is required is one's feelings to affirm one's gender.
We don't need a scanner to check for inter-sex people entering one bathroom or the other, so the discussion regarding that is irrelevant. Inter-sex people are already using the bathroom they want and their case is so rare that it is a non-issue. The issue is that predator men will use transgenderism as an excuse to enter women's safe spaces.
It would seem to me that the ones that are using people with a mental disorders for political gain are the true haters here. And it is these people that are actually putting everyone in danger, including trans-people, by affirming their delusions, instead of helping them get the proper care they need. This would be like prescribing diet pills to an anorexic instead of providing the proper psychological care they need. The left is not about helping people. They are about using people as a political club against their political opponents.
Quoting RogueAI
If I want you to refer to me as, "My Master" because I identify as a Dark Sith Lord, would you refuse?
If not, then it is incumbent upon you to explain the discrepancy. Why do you believe a man can be a woman more than a man can be a Sith Lord? Why do you believe a man can be a woman more than the claim that the Christian-right's God exists?
Quoting Relativist
There is logical inconsistency in both the semantics AND the acceptance of extraordinary claims with no evidence.
Gender as "what is presented and felt" are biological. Feelings are biological, or more specific - neurological. I'm not sure what "presented" means other than using sexist tropes to "present" oneself as either a male or female.
If gender and sex are separate, then why is changing one's biology an affirmation of one's gender? If presenting and feeling are what define one's gender, then why the need to change the biology and control other's speech? Why the need to enter female spaces - which are divided by sex, not by gender?
The ultimate issue here though is that you and the others here have ASSUMED the claims of people that claim to be a woman when they are a man are true. Not only that, but you are being inconsistent in your acceptance of one claim over another when they both have the same amount of evidence - none. This is no different than how Christians accept the existence of one God over others, when there is the same amount of evidence for the existence of all gods - none.
You don't want to admit this because doing so will undermine everything that has been said in defense of transgenderism here.
Quoting substantivalism
We're talking about feelings here. Does a woman's need to feel safe override a man's feeling to be a woman? Who's feelings get affirmed at the expense of the others?
Quoting frank
Do we have a right to feel safe? Does our need to feel safe override other people's rights to do other things?
My Master? Yes, I would refuse. Dark Sith Lord? And I knew you had a severe mental compulsion to be called that or it causes you distress? Sure, why not? But you didn't answer my question about pronouns. Do you refuse to call a man her or she?
Are you saying that women have a right to use the bathroom without biological men in the room?
You're wrong. Consistency is present if a word corresponds to a concept. It's an entirely different matter as to whether or not you (and others) are willing to accept the linguistic shift. But languages evolve all the time.
Quoting Harry Hindu Physical alteration of one's body is presentation. Is biology being changed? Amputation of a leg isn't a change of biology, nor is cosmetic surgery.
[Quote] why the need to change the biology and control other's speech? [/quote]
“The one constant of a vibrant living language is change,” explains Gregory Barlow, President of Merriam-Webster. “We continuously encounter new ways of describing the world around us, and the dictionary is a record of those changes.” (source)
In the present case, it's a matter of having a word to denote a particular concept. If you read the word, it's to your benefit to understand what the word means- there's no control involved. If you get triggered when you see others using the term, that's your problem. If you feel to need to correct others when they use the term in the way you oppose then you are as guilty of trying to control others as anyone.
[Quote]Why the need to enter female spaces - which are divided by sex, not by gender?[/quote]
Those are the serious issues! The semantics is trivia. I sense that you lump it all together in your mind.
I don't disagree in strength and speed sports. Billiards, darts and poker, not so much. As to exclusive places, if someone has had surgery, IMO they're entitled.
Regardless of the feelings you point out or whether we do or don't enforce laws on the matter are irrelevant to solving the rape/molester epidemic if not addressing this, period. . . end of story. That involves going beyond retro-active approaches to pro-active ones including extensive attention paid to mental health, education on said topic matters to underage individuals, and care taken to social rearing of the next/future generations.
What did you say about metal detectors and safety concerns as regards terrorists on planes? Isn't there another aspect of that you were forgetting. . . having to do with the concept of deradicalization.
There is the social aspect of competing in leagues with darts snooker etc. access to facilities etc that mean it makes sense to have female only pursuits. Darts is a very social and male dominated pursuit. If women want to pursue it then a women’s only league seems reasonable.
Imho, exclusive places are for females. We can agree to disagree but it’s for women to decide in the end.
:roll: of course I can agree with all that (just read my recent posts in other political discussions), but that will take generations to accomplish. A more immediate solution to the trans problem is to start addressing it as what it is - a delusional disorder.
Quoting Relativist
This is so laughable that you cannot see the contradiction in what you just said here.
What you just said can be applied to yourself and the trans-community. So when trans people hear the word "gender" being used a as a synonym for "sex", or pronouns being used to refer to sex, and are triggered, then that is their problem, right? This is just more of the left's "rules for thee, but not for me" (the right is hypocritical in this regard too, so it's more of an extremist tactic to control others to reinforce their delusions).
Quoting Cleveland Clinic
Quoting Relativist
That is changing one's physiology which is part of one's biology.
The point is that why change your body if gender is a feeling and/or a social construction? If gender is feeling then changing your gender would be changing how you feel. If it were a social construction then changing gender would require changing society, not an individual's body parts.
Not to mention, that they never achieve creating real sex organs so the only thing they could be presenting is a fake version of a man or woman. When the the doctor creates hole between a man's legs as a "vagina" a medical grade dilator has to be used to keep the wound from closing. The body knows what it is, despite what the mind might think.
Quoting Relativist
The problem is that this linguistic shift is based on a misunderstanding of other terms as well as contradictory with the rest of what we know. This is typical of religious claims. They end up contradicting other claims they have made, as well as being logically inconsistent in accepting some claims over others when they all have no evidence to support any of them.
Quoting frank
I'm saying that everyone, including women, has the right to feel safe.
Quoting RogueAI
You didn't answer the most important question on why you would believe a man can be a woman more than a man can be a Sith Lord, or believe in the existence of the Christian god.
As for pronouns - they refer to one's sex, so I will use them to refer to one's sex regardless of what one wishes.
Have you ever called someone a name that they did not identify with - idiot, moron, ass, bigot, racist, sexist, stupid, etc.?
If I don't feel safe peeing with a dwarf in the room, is the state supposed to do something about that?
That depends on whether your fear is realistic or not (delusional).
Is the state supposed to sort out the nature of my fear, and then rule on the dwarf issue?
There are probably more men assaulting women. What are the statistics on men assaulting women in bathrooms?
I'm not sure as men have mostly been kept out of women's bathrooms so it would logically follow that most assaults on women occurred outside of the bathroom. By allowing men into women's safe spaces, the assaults in bathrooms undoubtedly will go up.
But none of this actually addresses the actual issue in that some in this thread are advocating that men should be able to enter a woman's bathroom or locker room based on the fallacious and incoherent idea that men can be women. Can men be women and vice versa?
Prove it.
So you're abandoning your whole "everybody has a right to be safe" thing? You're leaving me to pee in front of dwarves even though I don't feel safe?
Propagating a delusion as if it were real, creating mass delusion, is what makes everyone less safe.
If a man cannot be a woman then why have a debate about bathrooms? Should we abandon arguments that are red herrings?
It's not a matter of rights. If the public owns the toilet. Access to it is up to the public.
It's not even that because the trans-movement claims that one is a woman simply by claiming it. A man is no longer a man once they enter a woman's bathroom, so the discussion about men entering women's bathroom is irrelevant and we should instead focus on the trans claim that someone is a woman or man by simply claiming it, or by wearing a dress or entering a women's bathroom.
Yes. I disagree that a man can transition to being a woman. A man can transition to being a trans woman. I don't really understand why anyone would deny that, but I'm open to hearing the answer (though I might still disagree even after understanding it).
I think it's very clear that transitioning is psychologically precarious for some people. Apparently not for others. All any of us can do is look past the face, the race, the sex, the religion, the what have you, to the living breathing being who animates the form. I sort of feel sorry for people who can't do that.
What does that even mean? What is a trans-woman and how does it differ from a man or woman? Man and woman are biological entities so to be a trans-woman appears to mean that you are intersex but have more female parts than male parts.
I think you're pretending not to understand what a trans woman is. It's a guy who is living as a woman, with or without surgical and hormonal modifications to enhance the appearance of femininity.
And I think you have drunk the Kool-Aid without questioning.
Quoting frank
How does one live as a woman if one is a guy?
Why don't you find one and talk to them about it?
No, I don't mean that.
I usually keep my bullshit to myself.
Thanks for saying nothing at all and pushing the can down the road. Proactive is the word for the day.
Quoting Harry Hindu It's a delusional disorder to have mixed sex public or private places?
My work doesn't that have that problem, there are already mixed sex bathrooms which have existed for a while which didn't have this problem, other businesses don't have this problem with regards to hiring, nor is it the case that society at large really has a problem with this either in many other respects.
If anything, society seems to as it already has been moving in direction that, as the melting pot U.S. that it is, one that would be gender neutral for the most part. Unless we are supposed to go back to some comical conservative policing of every person on every bit of clothing, mannerism, figure of speech, hand motion, tone of voice, hair style, relationship style, etc. Making sure they are 'consistent' and 'correct' about their 'gender expression'.
Another step is literally what we've already been doing which is basically plastic and general cosmetic surgery. This already exists, continues to be developed further, and is readily rather available to anyone who desires it for whatever reason barring state/federal specifics on any restrictive medical practices.
___________________________________________________________________________________
This goes beyond the trans issue and I still fail to see a rational solution that someone across the isle or in the middle is able to give which doesn't immediately turn into some comical satirical take that you'd imagine a woke liberal thinks of a conservative solution.
However, the one thing you don't want to do is leave that answer blank because some radical will be happy to fill in that answer for you.
What was your point? What argument is there about physical prowess? It’s a biological fact.
Why are people so keen to dismantle women’s exclusive places? Why do we need to re engineer bathrooms and changing rooms for a less safe inferior solution? There are social aspects of these places that aren’t factored in. I find the whole mindset dismissive of women.
That wasn't the question. And you didn't keep your bullshit to yourself until I exposed your hypocrisy. Now you, and everyone else that drank the trans-Kool-Aid, is silent. Will you all bring the same tiring arguments back up the next time a Trans thread appears on the forum? Of course you will because it's not about what the truth is to you. It's about acquiring political power in the form of using people with mental disorders as political clubs against your political opponents.
Quoting tim wood
Confusing, I know. But Frank seems to think that everyone should know what a trans-woman is and what it means for a man to live as a woman, but when pressed on what that means... silence.
All this talk about who can enter which bathroom is irrelevant because if you really have spoken to a trans person then they will tell you that a woman is simply someone that believes they are a woman. So that person with a penis entering the women's bathroom IS a woman and there are no men entering women's bathrooms - ever.
This is what happens when you don't bother asking the right questions when someone makes extraordinary claims because all you are really concerned about is using people as political pawns. They don't care about what trans-gender really means, or else their definitions and explanations would be consistent.
All this talk about pronouns when the same people advocating for calling people by their preferred pronouns as a sign of respect have themselves called people names (bigot, racists, idiot, moron, etc.) that they did not identify as. The hypocrisy is so easy to point out precisely because they are simply repeating the same bullshit they've heard without questioning it themselves. They don't reflect on what is being said because it reinforces what they already believe (the arguments from the left (or right) are always right). This is what happens when you see the world through the prism of politics.
Maybe, but there's nothing you can do about it.
Hi Rogue,
I see this idea a lot in Democratic Americans, that 'large segments' of white society are overtly racist. I'd love to see some proof of this applying to 'large segments' of people.
I was very familiar with the 'birther' thing - we get a lot more US news than you do Canadian, I would assume, just given the two countries relative power. But to me, it seemed like BS lies from Trump were echoed by the right wing propaganda machinery and some naive / poorly informed people believed them.
There are racists and racism. But 'so traumatizing to a large segment of white society that they had to "other" him' seems a wild, unfalsifiable statement.
Which is partly why Trump got back into office, right? Woke arguments were/are so wildly overstated. I genuinely believe that this tendency on the left is HARMING the very populations they claim to support, and I say this as someone offended by their betrayal of principles I hold dear.
I mean, Democrats couldn't even beat Trump in 2024, when the man was super beatable. That's on Democrats as much as Republicans.
Quoting RogueAI
Again, I see this repeated a lot, but NOBODY ALIVE THINKS LIKE THIS.
Even if you reject my capitalization, certainly, white people do not view themselves as 'white people' the way that minority groups might view them or themselves.
I grew up in a small, working class town. Mostly white. I went to the 'country' high school. Lots of pick up trucks in the parking lot. (I moved to Toronto as fast as I could). These people would be Republicans, generally, in the States. I do not recognize what you are talking about in any of the people I know.
Quoting RogueAI
The desire to not be offensive has certainly destroyed any kind of disciplinary standards in Toronto schools. I think 'wokeness' has done permanent, widespread, severe damage to a lot of children, with discipline being just one of the many ways it has been compromising schools over my 20+ year career.
Quoting RogueAI
Have you read "Of Boys and Men" by Richard Reeves? It's great, and he talks about just how devastating that thinking is for boys. Hey, you could show your principal, nothing risky about that right :)
America itself is a very racist country. We have been since before the Revolutionary War. I said this to another poster (in this thread, I think). In my lifetime, the Mormon Church preached that blacks could not be priests. In my Mom's lifetime, blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, could not go to white schools, and were lynched. Just let that sink in, that in living memory, America was so racist that not only was de facto racism entrenched in society, de jure racism existed too! The state was doing it!
Here's the governor of Alabama:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhze-cPHVtc&t=9s
Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!
As a white person, I have lived among whites all my life and have heard how we talk when it's just white people in the room. Many years ago, I was going out to lunch with my partner teacher, and he saw a pregnant black woman and he fantasized about running her over. One of his dreams in life was for a black person to break into his house so he could legally shoot him. In 2016, this guy got MAGA in a big way.
I don't want this to turn into a MAGA diatribe, so I'll just give three examples of Trump&Co being totally racist:
- Charlottesville, when Trump said there were fine people on both sides.
- Darren Beattie was appointed undersecretary to the state department after he tweeted this:
"Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work. Unfortunately, our entire national ideology is predicated on coddling the feelings of women and minorities, and demoralizing competent white men."
- Our current immigration policy where white Afrikaners are welcomed as refugees while Abrego Garcia was mistakenly sent to an El Salvoradorean prison (the Trump Administration admitted it was a mistake), and they won't bring him back.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I wish it were true. Have you heard of the "Great Replacement"? This is the belief by right-wing whites that the white race is going to be literally fucked out of existence and replaced by minorities because we're not having enough kids.
Chris Rock has a great routine how invested white people are in their whiteness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJmvfbDdhFg
"There's not a white man in this room who would change places with me, AND I'M RICH!"
If a black man can get rich in America, it's not racist in the way that actually matters. You're talking about the way people think. They can think whatever they like.
Of course. Black women don't have it hard in this country cause Oprah!
I didn't comment on how hard life is for anyone. Everyone has challenges. Everyone has advantages. A lot of things come down to mindset.
When you said "If a black man can get rich in America, it's not racist in the way that actually matters." I take that to mean "if a black man can get rich in America, it's not REAL racism. It's "racism", but it's not actually hurting anyone."
If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
The racism that matters is stuff like red-lining. If a particular white person doesn't like blacks, but this doesn't impact my ability to own property, I don't see it as a kind of racism that makes any difference to me. People can think whatever they like.
What I'm doing about it is exposing the hypocrisy and motivations of the extreme left for open minds to see. It was only a few years ago that even questioning trans-genderism would get you banned or canceled. I was one of the few going against the grain here on this forum. Now you have many Democrats calling out the trans-movement as hurting the party. The needle is moving.
Ok. I think you're going a little too far, though. There's room on the planet for people who become trans. There's no reason to squash them. Just let them be. The woke bullshit will stabilize itself over time.
I never said there isn't room on the planet for anyone, nor am I trying to squash anyone. My whole point when it comes to politics - if you've read any posts of mine recently in political discussions - is live and let live. The problem is that the trans-movement is not letting others live by petitioning the government to affirm their delusions. Have you been consistent in informing atheists that there is room on the planet for Christians and the atheists should not squash the Christians? I'm not a Christian. I'm an atheist. The difference is that I'm consistent in my rejection of all delusions and those that want government to affirm their delusions.
Both Christians and atheists are protected by the first amendment. People can be as deluded as they want to be. It's none of your business.
Quoting Harry Hindu
For the most part, the support the LGBTQ community is getting is about capitalism. Companies want to virtue signal. And there's nothing anybody can do to stop them. Have you not received diversity education from your employer?
Morning,
I appreciate these thoughtful replies! I've been a depressed hermit for a few years now, and I am therefore rusty as I attempt to communicate with people and the world again, and I am already afraid I have written too much ...
Feel to free to skip it/parts of it, I've been working on some of these ideas for a while now in my personal writing, and got on a roll. Course, I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.
And, I want to be as respectful as possible in disagreeing with you as a 'privileged' white male in Toronto or simply as a human being.
I think "America is a racist country" is more of a meme, in the Richard Dawkins sense. And this meme has been weaponized in the hands of awful narcissists, while at the same time a collision of communication technologies monetized groupthink. It works the same way on the right, for sure, MAGA, as intentionally vague as 'racist country'.
The unknowable, hidden enemy can be anyone, can serve any purpose in the hands of the loudest of the voices found.
Because by all the best data, America is demonstratively much less racist than it has ever been, although the past five years are going to be hard to measure and parse, and it takes time to do social science like that. So, there is a lag-time in the data, but the best data continues to show all sorts of agreed-upon-across-the-spectrum demographic positives.
It's only the framing of the issue, not the data, that asserts the unique 'racism' of America. Since there is no data aside from outcomes-based data that 'proves' racism - we cannot 'prove' anything, scientifically, about any ideologies, we are left to make a best-case argument. Again, the woke are ahead of the curve, deconstructing objectivity, 'decolonizing' education (the irony. We are literally colonizing the minds of our students with this dogma).
Now all the best arguments against the woke are simply proof that the woke are correct, with devastating consequences for anyone who wishes to reference, say, philosophy, quality data, or anyone even speaking 'out of place' by opining on gender as a male, etc.
Coleman Hughes calls your statement and others of their ilk "The Myth of no Progress". I could rattle off a dozen sources though, that I've read in the past year (hermits have time for reading), from across the political spectrum, who see this meme (however they express this idea) as toxic, for everyone, for white people and for all the people it is supposed to help.
Heck, I could name a dozen black authors off the top of my head, if you include academic essays and such, who authoritatively denounce woke thought from across the political spectrum as illiberal, harmful, patronizing, racist, proven ineffective, etc, etc ... depends on the author. The acrimony towards woke is the common denominator. And this level of discourse, across the spectrum, a lateral discourse, with this much forceful argument is generally ahead of the curve on social trends.
The myth of no progress diminishes the real suffering of people who lived under Jim Crow, suggesting that their suffering is the same as those today. It breeds discouragement, resentment, an 'external locus of responsibility', that is robustly associated with poor mental health outcomes in psychology.
And yet, for me to seek out black perspectives on race that run contrary to woke narratives is racist by definition. I could get cancelled, easily, were I to return to the classroom, simply for sharing my GoodReads reviews.
Quoting RogueAI
Man, I know some of these people personally. Some are friends. It doesn't mean the same thing to the guys I know as it seems to mean to you.
First time I heard that spoken was over a decade ago, easily. From a guy whose been a friend since high school. The first smart MAGA type I ever encountered, even though there are differences here in Canada, the core beliefs and values of these new conservative types tend to be the same.
It sounded super creepy to me right away, but then I looked into it, and yeah, this is just a stupid conspiracy theory propped up by a few legitimate arguments and data points, a really stupid way to talk about immigration. I would posit that this is sort of an inevitable outcome of a society that is failing to even teach reading, but is unfailing in teaching dogma that casts these kinds of people as 'deplorables'.
That paranoid conspiratorial thinking was sweeping through the right back then for sure though, that language. The collision of social media and the smartphone in 2014 swept up both tribes, exaggerating outrage via algorithm. Society is no longer able to keep up with sourcing good information as our tech advances far outrun our cultural adaptations. Conspiracy theories on both sides is just one outcome.
I was talking to people on Quillette as Jan. 6 was taking place, heterodox types mostly, but the majority of the community seemed to be highly conservative, this new kind of conservative, and I was watching some of these conspiracy theories taking hold in real time. Within days I saw the same talking points around whether or not it was an insurrection coalescing around the same crazy stuff that was baked into the conversation from the beginning on the 6th.
I know conspiracy theories. 'White supremacy' is a conspiracy theory too.
The genius of it is the way is has co-opted morality entirely, despite their own morality being so opaque.
Broadly speaking, MLK was a deontologist. He believed the word of God taught him to understand that humanity is a shared experience, fundamentally. This belief gave power to the mans words and character, his ability to lead.
It appears to me that wokeists are, weirdly, deontological. I think the majority are likely moral relativists, which leads them to a technocratic, neoliberal outsourcing of morality to 'experts' for utilitarian ends. They claim to exist in the same moral tradition as MLK, but their movement and ideology is fundamentally secular, lacking that shared sense of unifying moral purpose embodied by MLK.
But can you point to anyone arguing woke arguments who isn't, by definition, exclusionary? Who doesn't feel of an entirely different category, morally speaking, from MLK? Who inspires you to difficult action through moral force of character?
Thus lacking the moral strength for their arguments, wokists turned to controlling language and education, storytelling and cultural expression. This, along with the beginning of our virtual age in 2014, allowed certain fringey people to gain an extraordinary amount of power fast, by advancing narratives perfectly suited to our shiny new virtual realities.
Wokism and MAGA are two peas in the same neoliberal technocratic dystopia that we now live in ...
(Haha, sorry. I also like to write horror stories as a hobby, and sometimes the existential dread I feel at the state of the world tends to bleed between the two).
Sorry man, this is too long. Overall, to come back to what you are saying, I don't dispute any of those experiences or observations you've shared. That thing about your partner teacher is frightening, appalling. I have never experienced such a naked, hatefully racist thing. Racism and hate of all kinds ARE real.
But this dreadful experience is simply increasingly less and less likely over time, has been for decades. And there will always be assholes. There are mentally ill people prone to racist outbursts. I've known a few. It is their psychosis talking though.
But pouring everybody's worst experiences of hate into one overflowing kiddie pool of prejudice isn't enough to outweigh the data, more and more of which emerges daily, on the failures of woke to accomplish anything at all, really, but division and wasted resources.
Heck, a principle here in Toronto killed himself after getting bullied for disagreeing with a wokist in PD that Canada was 'more racist' than the US. Disagreement with the dogma is killing people, literally.
This belief system, well-intentioned though she and her proponents may be, has had disastrous social consequences across the WEIRD world.
It is not even the best way to deal with the issues it purports to advocate for.
But the best argument, to me, remains that of Walter Benn Michaels and Adolph Reed Jr, who describe woke thought as a means of neoliberal elites presenting themselves as 'moral' by ensuring that the top ten percent of society is representative, thus dodging the need to do anything at all about economic disparity.
MLK himself argued for a movement based on social class, rather than racial essentialism.
The governor of Alabama, Darren Beattie, that dreadful weekend in Charlottesville, this stupid Afrikaner stunt which is obviously just a stunt, this is all a result of a conversation that has been weaponized and monetized by tech elites more powerful than many countries. Freaking Zuckerberg has blocked posting Canadian news for years, for example.
Your examples are of the worst of the worst sort of thinking, nefarious actors, often with agendas completely at odds with their words and actions. They take advantage of the weaknesses and blindspots of conservative, fan the flames of the worst fires, and sometimes it SEEMS like the FOX news talking heads are representative about what actual people think.
But these kind of people simply do not represent ordinary conservatives.
Do you think every woke person is represented by the extreme and seemingly insane fringes of their movement? Of course not.
Just last night I read about a decade-old study finding that exposure to conversations around white privilege lead white people to be more judgemental of poor white people as deserving of their poverty. We are teaching all sorts of people to be suspicious of white men. This seems stupid, given how many of us there are.
These trends I'm describing are sometimes decades old. That Richard Reeves book is new, but when Christina Hoff Sommers wrote about our schools' betrayal of boys twenty years ago, it was old news even then.
And Sommers is still vilified by wokists, despite two more decades of evidence piling up to vindicate her arguments.
Woke is a moral house of cards, and that shit's about to fall down.
If you made it to the end of this, thank you for reading, and I'd love to hear your thoughts!
Straw man. I'm not talking about the people that are deluded and keeping their delusion to themselves. If I identified as the reincarnated spirit of Elvis Presley and petitioned government to force people to refer to me as, "The King", to upgrade bathrooms toilets to thrones for the King, or that children must pray to the spirit of the King in school, would I be keeping my delusion to myself?
Quoting frank
No, I haven't. Although, I have worked for myself for a significant portion of my life. Companies are abandoning DEI initiatives. To even implement them in the first place is implying that you weren't treating people fair and equal before your company implemented them. Again, they are assuming the premise that systemic racism exists. We already have laws in the books for discrimination and treating people equally. DEI was a push to give special treatment to certain groups.
I think we have our wires crossed. There is no debate because men have significant physical advantages over women.
So you agree there isn't much of a physical advantage in transwomen competing in darts?
If so then we're reverting to the "exclusive spaces" argument (which I've addressed, and you've not commented on in reply).
I said the male advantage in those sports comes from the social aspects. If women want to fully participate it makes sense to have women only competition. I disagree that fully transitioned trans women should have access to these spaces. A clean definition line needs drawing imho. I think we are on the same page apart from how fully transitioned people are treated.
You mean like out on a street corner?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Those laws protect trans people from discrimination based on their trans status. It's illegal to refuse employment or housing to trans people. Does that cause your head to explode?
If that were the case then we wouldn't have murder, rape incidents, molestation, or work place harassment in any form or percentage. Only once they don't exist in any percentage can you think the laws are enough but until that is done other proactive actions have to be taken.
Are you a child? Murder is illegal. . . there are still murders and for a variety of different reasons. Are you going to address those or sit on your a** while those statistics continue onward. . . chunks of the population suffering. . . while you sit in your arm chair doing nothing because the law will punish them AFTER they do it.
What about prevention? What about lowering those statistics and not taking them as some peculiar 'natural' state of our society?
So, it wouldn't matter whether they were implemented in some wider social/cultural changes or specifically in the form of DEI but you can't trust the population to play nice.
Quoting Harry Hindu I'm exposing the ineptitude of those who virtue signal for the other side. I expect substantial results from anyone including yourself that are proactive and actually intend to fix those social/cultural/legal divides.
It's like how when race statistics come up in discussions surrounding criminal offences. I expect to see more than some peculiar jab at a particular group or a declaration of how its natural, that its too 'hard' or 'long' term to fix it, and to also just express some nihilistic 'well, they are just a messed up community we can do nothing about.'
Quoting Malcolm Parry Don't forget the genes! We love to see who has the best natural physique to sit high atop the rest of the population.
Is it because there is a rape/molestation issue. . . having to do with one particular sex statistically speaking. . . should we then be talking about that because its the reason why its unsafe?
Should we be. . . proposing social/cultural solutions for this difficult mental health crisis that a mere legal band aid isn't going to fix?
Really weird we are just. . . avoiding that.
The “exclusive places” are for females. A man without a penis does not pass that test. Just because a man has no penis doesn’t mean he automatically looks like a woman. Do you think women should have places where men are excluded from?
I agree with all of that and male violence should be addressed. Until then maybe keep males out of places where women are vulnerable. Once tgat has been overcome then ask women if they feel socially comfortable in toilets and changing rooms with men even when there is no threat of violence. I would hazard a guess many would prefer to keep men out.
:roll: Are Christians trying to bring God back into public schools from a street corner?
Quoting frank
I don't want it to be my business but they try to make my beliefs their business so that they can cancel or ban me if they do not align with their views. That is my point.
Quoting frank
Like I said, we already have laws that made discrimination illegal. The reason why we still have the laws is because people still discriminate. That is what the laws are for. We don't need more of the same laws. We need to enforce the ones we already have. If there is discrimination happening, then point it out specifically, so that we may fight it together. But using these vague, nebulous accusations of discrimination isn't helping anyone.
Quoting Malcolm Parry No excuses and exceptions then. This goes public and private in a wide manner both legally as well as culturally.
Women don't feel safe not just in bathrooms but just as much in work places even their own cities out at night. This momentary utilitarian gambit to garner greater moral virtue by reducing overall harm CANNOT be so single minded or limited.
It's either sex segregation or not. We either allow them to mix while aware of the risks involved or we allow the government as well as social strong handed individuals to intervene and restrict this mixing.
In either scenario that 'addressing of male violence' continues but I leave it to the general public to decide how separate the sexes should be socially, culturally, or legally.
Quoting Harry Hindu There is also an educational aspect and a social engineering one. Every generation has be expand beyond and past the faults of those who came before otherwise were just waiting for a new generation of dysfunctional individuals to take root.
Good. Ignore it then.
Do you wish to eradicate single sex spaces?
A man with his penis removed does not have a vagina. A woman with a beard and a deep voice is still a woman.
There will be no gender inspection at the entrance to toilets etc so if a man passes for a woman because they have had extensive work then no one will be any the wiser. Most trans women look like men. If a trans man wishes to use the men’s facilities no man will object. If they wish to use the women’s facilities they have every right to do as they are a woman.
I can't when people like yourself do not ignore it and assume their claims are true and then start threads like this to have a debate about bathrooms when it isn't necessary if you would take your own advice and ignore them.
Sheesh. It's just full-circle hypocrisy with you, but else would one expect of one that sees the world through the prism of politics/religion.
Might be worth taking a long walk and contemplating why.
So trans women ought to suffer using men's bathrooms, risking being abused, because cis men might pretend to be trans women to use women's bathrooms? That seems unfair.
And perhaps read the first article I linked to:
Most attacks on women happen where there are no witnesses. In public places there are CCTV cameras everywhere.
This is like saying that a delusional person ought not to suffer the knowledge that they are deluding themselves.
This is also saying that the same people that are arguing for people to use the bathroom corresponding to their sex would then assault people that are actually doing that.
Where are the statistics that show that trans-people are disproportionately assaulted in bathrooms as opposed to other places? Where did trans-people go the bathroom before we started having these types of discussions? We were not discussing who uses which bathroom 10-20 years ago, so where were trans-people going to the bathroom 10-20 years ago?
We are in complete agreement on your bolded statement. In fact that's my point. Your declaration of what "most" trans women look like inspires no confidence considering creation of a neo vagina is standard transition surgery so you're clearly out of your depth.
Idk what exactly you mean by "standard", but it should be noted that that kind of surgery is actually on the rare side.
This is therefore pointless and besides the point. The reality is that we will continue to have both if not continue to proliferate mixed sex spaces by public dictate, government proclamation, and business minded equality as well as ease of use.
Why have multiple bathrooms when you can just PAY for one? Why have sex segregated schools when you can pool resources and combine them together? Etc.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle as mixed sex spaces in ALL aspects of society will persist so unless we are going to back track on woman's rights or balloon the government budget to remove all these mixed spaces and add in the appropriate single sex spaces the mixing danger persists.
. . . on to the elephant in the room I've been posting about for a thousand posts now. . . still waiting. . .
Quoting Malcolm Parry This is why the analogy to race realism is a rather apt one for this discussion. Whether we can in fact find a biological dividing line for defining what it means to be racially distinct means. . . well. . . it's unclear what it would mean at all when it comes to social rearing and societal structuring.
There can be impacts from medical access for genetically specific and prevalent conditions among particular racial groups which have to be accounted for.
However, beyond the undisputed irrelevancy it has to the legal system, what exactly is left for the race realist to motivate any social engineering after establishing these biological categories?
Is this scientific fact supposed to impact what we wear in an objective sense? How we teach our kids or conduct ourselves out in the wild?
If to many of those questions its no. . . then the biology seems rather a non-sequitur.
Most trans women don’t have their penises removed. I’m not sure having a penis removed would ensure a man looks like a woman. What is it with the insult?
I don’t know if they’re disproportionately assaulted in bathrooms as opposed to other places, but they are at greater risk if forced to use bathrooms according to their biological sex, as quoted 8 days ago.
So, to repeat myself; if you're concerned about people's safety, just let trans men use men's bathrooms and trans women use women's bathrooms.
You didn't answer my question about which bathrooms trans-people have been using before this became an issue.
Nor did you respond to how trans-people will be more at risk from the people that are saying they should use the bathroom corresponding to their sex.
It seems to me that what you're saying is that trans-people are threatened no matter where they are. What is to keep a man from entering a women's bathroom and assaulting a trans-person? How is allowing them to go into the bathroom of their choice going to be more safe if their safety is threatened no matter where they are? You seem to be saying it will make them feel better that their delusions are being affirmed.
Bathrooms, pronouns and sports are divided by sex. So in demanding rights to things that are divided by sex just proves that gender and sex are one and the same and that we are talking about sex and not gender.
And aren't public restrooms public places with several people occupying the space? Why would someone assault someone else with several witnesses around? Let's say that a man hides out in a woman's bathroom to wait for a trans-person to enter. How long will they have to wait?
If trans-people's safety are threatened in bathrooms, then what makes you think a trans-man will be safe entering a men's bathroom? When you actually dig deep and think beyond the statistics you are providing, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, or is realistic.
Is it ok to affirm a delusional person's delusions? Is it ok to prescribe an anorexic person diet pills to affirm their distorted view of their body? Should we put boxes of cat litter in public restrooms in case someone identifies as a cat?
Is it ok to reject some extraordinary claims with no evidence but accept other extraordinary claims with no evidence?
I addressed the relevant issue. Trans people are at a greater risk when they use the bathroom according to their biological sex and cis women are not at a greater risk when trans women are allowed to use the women’s bathroom.
So if your concern is people’s safety then trans men ought use men’s bathrooms and trans women ought use women’s bathrooms.
What do you mean "think beyond the statistics"? You're suggesting we ignoring the facts? Because the facts are:
Whether or not it "makes sense" to you is irrelevant. Your intuition – or whatever it is – is wrong.
I have a perfectly adequate understanding thanks very much. I think your opinion is feeble and based upon nothing. That cover it?
It isn’t a vagina.
.
the muscular tube leading from the external genitals to the cervix of the uterus in women and most female mammals.
You and him are silent. Paying it lip service in philosophical side comments.
Are you going to remove all mixed sex spaces in all aspects of society? If you can't and you won't then the issue will persist so the problem remains to be solved.
Trans people are really women according to definition 56. . . there are still mixed sex spaces and rape epidemic rages on. They are not women according definition 12. . . there are still mixed sex spaces and the rape epidemic rages on.
As @Michael continues to show through his own links there is the still prevalent risk trans-people have as regards using the bathroom according to their sex. That is why we don't naively stop at legal dictate and then wipe our hands of the issue as this continues via the inherent cruelty of the general masses that we are all familiar with.
I guess rape and molestation is fine as long as its done to the smaller group? We can go out to eat now, right guys? Problem solved. . .
I don’t have an issue with unisex spaces with individual cubicles.
Quoting substantivalism
What mixed sex spaces need removing? Quoting substantivalism
They aren’t according to United Kingdom law. How are they women? In your view? What makes a trans woman a woman?
Quoting substantivalism
Then it is up to the authorities to provide a space for these vulnerable men. Not foist them on women.
Eventually those people walk out of their cubicles. . . and see each other. . . in the same space. . .
Quoting Malcolm Parry So we are going to keep the spaces which we understand to exacerbate the problems we are talking about. . . then that makes addressing them more pressing as you aren't putting an iron wall between men and women across all aspects of society. Wherever they mix there will be friction.
Quoting Malcolm Parry Semantics which I've shown are irrelevant to the core issue.
Quoting Malcolm Parry So are you going to pay for a fourth bathroom to be setup across the entire U.S. rather than just layout a plan to address the prevalence of mental health issues that select men have?
Is the plan to keep backtracking because you fail to ever address the core issue?
What rape issue!? We just need to add a fifth bathroom and a 52nd safe space and then it will. . . go away all on its own.
Wrong. You are avoiding the relevant issue. You are also focused on symptoms and not the cause.
Asking which bathrooms trans-people used before this became an issue is an entirely relevant issue. You want to avoid answering it because you are intelligent enough to realize that you've caught yourself in a logical trap.
1. If trans-people had been using bathrooms that aligned with their sex before this became an issue, then why did this become an issue? Where are the actual statistics of trans-people being attacked because they used the wrong bathroom instead of being attacked for being trans?
2. If trans-people had been using bathrooms aligned with their gender then how can there be any evidence of trans-people being attacked because they were using the bathroom associated with their gender and not their sex?
3. How is letting trans-people use the bathroom that aligns with their gender going to make them safer when they can still be attacked in whichever bathroom they choose?
All the other questions I asked are relevant because they address how realistic your claims are. You just want to keep repeating the claim.
The most relevant issue that you are avoiding is how do we determine when someone is telling the truth when they say they are a man or a woman? What makes one a man or a woman? What makes sex so special that one can identify as the opposite sex but if one were to identify as a cat, Elvis Presley or a Dark Sith Lord, well that is just crazy? You are making extraordinary claims without supporting evidence that their claims are true.
You can't even make a sensible distinction between sex and gender.
Quoting Michael
You can make it make more sense by not trying to avoid the relevant questions that you should be asking yourself. But you won't because it's politics/religion to you.
You don't need to know. Just let people take a piss in peace. It's not hard. Why you are even thinking about other people's genitals or chromosomes or psychology when going to the toilet is beyond me. It's kinda creepy.
It is you that is focused on the bathroom issue when I have shown that is a symptom and not the cause. It is illogical to even discuss bathrooms when you haven't ironed out the psychological issue first.
I’m focused on actual people trying to live their actual lives. Trans people aren’t just some philosophical hypothetical. They exist and they often need to use public bathrooms. The studies show that it is safer to let trans men use men’s bathrooms and trans women use women’s bathrooms, so any law that tries to prevent this ought not be passed.
If you don’t understand trans people then fine. You don’t need to. Them going to the toilet has nothing to do with you - or anyone else.
Yes. I think women need certain exclusive places for certain activities.
As for the rest I doubt we will ever agree. I’m not even sure what you think needs to be done.
Quoting Malcolm Parry You literally don't want to actually discuss it. It's not a case of disagreement as it's the equivalent of saying, "We've given women their exclusive places! We are done."
Then walk away. You say nothing else and give snide comments about how you 'care' about solving it but say nothing. You give no further options.
Your almost as bad as @Harry Hindu who's brilliant strategy to solve the prevalence of rape and assault issues is to add a dick scanner in front of bathrooms and he doesn't even have a second. . . or third. . . or fourth thought about the mental health issue at hand here. Paraphrased he says, "It's real hard and long term. We'd need to do a lot of work." Yeah, sherlock. That is why it needs to be discussed.
[b]Someone is getting raped and molested whether we:
1) Have mixed sex and unisex spaces together.
2) Add new spaces to accommodate further gender identities or groups.
3) Remove by legal dictate distinctions between such spaces making them all mixed sex.
4) Only retain unisex spaces across all aspects of society.[/b]
It's almost as if those serial rapists, trans-phobic individuals, violent anti-feminists, and opportunistic molesters don't just take a holiday because the laws been written up. They don't just pack up their mental baggage and think now is the time to get that treated or fixed before it becomes a problem because a new woman's space opened up. In fact, it's almost as if they just designate a new target. If not women then men in women's clothing it seems. That or they reduce their high order criminal offences to work place harassment which may even result in criminal offences if the condition motivating this behavior results in them mentally boiling over.
These people have been discussing this topic matter on this forum for at least as far along as this forum has probably existed. Is proposing proactive solutions to that issue in all its aspects too difficult a task but posting the same semantic debate and back an' forth that you participate in for that same allotted time is more important?
I’m not sure what you are going on about. What problem are you trying to solve?
What I've been talking about for how many posts now. . .
Quoting Malcolm Parry Thanks for your agreement I'm sure those rape survivors appreciate your. . . desire to. . . eventually. . . maybe. . . possibly. . . address it.
Just not. . . now.
What do you want society to do about it? If you have answers i’m in full support. Quoting substantivalism
I’m with you all the way. But until you’ve fixed the world maybe just allow women to go for a pee without men in the bathrooms. Seems fair
Which is factually correct.
The first update is that someone long ago pointed out that there can be orientations and bearings ("gender" in the psychological sense, as in the OP) regarding sex and gender (in the sociological sense) separately, so there's not just sex (biological), gender (sociological), orientation and bearing (both psychological), there's sex, sexual orientation, sexual bearing, gender, gender orientation, and gender bearing -- six different things that may correlate but can come apart from each other, for each of which you can have a position on a two-dimensional spectrum of masculinity X femininity.
But then I realized that I have been conflating the spectrum of masculinity X femininity with a different spectrum of degrees of attraction (to another or for oneself) to the binary corners of that spectrum. But agender is not neutrois, bigender is not (for lack of a better word, this specific sense of) genderqueer, asexual is not attraction to neutrois people, and bisexual is not (necessarily) attraction to (that sense of) genderqueer people. What we need is a field (a value at each point) over the masculine X feminine spectrum, for both gender and sex, and for both orientation and bearing for each.
So you’ve got
and for each of those you’ve got
and for each of those,
Someone a while ago made a joke about me doing quantum mechanics of gender here, and I guess I’ve moved on to quantum field theory of gender now.
This is a genuine question to try and understand why it is important for all the various labels for the various phenomena to be not based on sex?
I am interested in why in 2025 that anyone even had to label themselves. I’m a bloke because I am but I also read Jane Austen, I love cooking and I love some other stuff that be seen as traditionally female. I have no issue with how anyone dresses, who they have relationships with etc etc. However, in the society we are in today certain activities and certain spaces should exclude men. Imho. For participation in sport and for times when women have to go to bathroom or get undressed. Why is this so controversial and hateful to some people?
I do say that a trans woman is a man. I am happy to address them as the name they wish to be called but cannot and will not see them as women. Why is that wrong? If people think I am wrong , why?
I find the subject fascinating because I see it as simple but people make it complicated.
It doesn’t. The 2% figure includes people with syndromes that only males or females have. A tiny percentage of people are ambiguous but that is because of developmental issues. It is not a spectrum. Do you believe it is and if so why?
You are focused on affirming the delusions of delusional people. I never said trans-people don't exist. I said that their beliefs are delusions, just as anorexic people exist but they have a distorted view of their body. You are the one denying that delusional disorders and mass delusions exist
You don't understand trans-people either which is evident by your inability to define "gender" and "woman". If you can't define either term without contradicting yourself then you effectively don't understand them either.
Those studies do not show that it is safer to let trans people use which ever bathroom they choose. It simply shows that trans people are at risk regardless of which bathroom they choose because they can still be assaulted in any bathroom.
Sure, I have seen women go into the men's bathroom because the line to the women's bathroom was too long. I have seen a man enter the women's bathroom with his elderly mother to assist her. The difference is that they did not enter the bathroom on the premise that they are a man or woman and entering either bathroom doesn't make them, or affirm they are a man or woman. Sure, they can enter whichever bathroom they choose, but it won't be because they are an actual man or woman. The problem isn't which bathroom they use. The problem is using bathrooms as a way of affirming the delusions of a delusional person, which would be like prescribing diet pills to an anorexic person.
Is it ethical to play along with a person's delusions?
Masculinity and femininity are different across different cultures, so not necessarily based in the biology of the sexes. If gender is a social construct, then gender would be different in each culture. If a trans-person travel internationally, does their gender change?
A social construct is a concept, idea, or category that is created and maintained by a society or group through shared beliefs and practices, rather than being inherent or naturally occurring. A social construct as something created and maintained by society would be the antithesis of a personal feeling. To change gender, we would have to change society, not an individual's body parts or clothing.
The social construct was created as a means of distinguishing between the sexes in a society that covers their bodies with clothing. Clothing evolved as a way of flaunting one's sex and resources, the same way peacocks use their tails. So wearing a dress does not make one a woman. It is meant to display the fact that one is already a woman and the dress is means of representing that fact when the dress covers up the fact.
It's not clear to me what delusion you believe they have. We've already established that trans men don't believe that they were born with a penis or XY chromosomes, so it can't be that.
And neither the DSM nor the ICD classify gender dysphoria/incongruence as a type of psychosis, and unless you're a qualified psychiatrist you're in no position to question the professionals – or at the very least I have no good reason to believe you over them.
Never understood where the leap came for gender to describe societal differences between the sexes to people wanting society to validate their right to pick a gender. Very dismissive of women and their status in society. Women fought long and hard to get the rights and respect they now have.
Is this a trick question? Your father was a male your mother was a female. Your mother gave birth to you.
Quoting tim wood
How am I being dismissive? All these people are either biologically male or female.
Are we really concerned about where people relieve themselves? Or are we really discussing whether the process of transitioning actually changes a woman into a man?
Indeed, Harry's biological essentialism is a queer ideology.
While I can't and won't answer for the particular gentleman, I feel it a point of basic decency to remind you of, and of course introduce into the discussion, the history of women's rights (or rather, more importantly, the lack thereof ie. the entirety of human existence up until recently) and the very real phenomenon of urinary retention from stress as well as the solid scientific documentation of it.
Rights or not, a place that cannot be properly utilized is a waste of not only money and space but purpose. And that, is unacceptable, even to those who find things the average person would have difficulty stomaching as casual and normal.
In the context of this particular argument, if you're not a woman, you simply are biologically incapable of understanding, at least in the way a woman would, and are pretty much just talking to move the air around. Men can relieve themselves standing, and most often do. Women cannot. Therefore, for a female, even the slightest feeling of "having to pee" introduces strong elements and notions of vulnerability into the current mindset. This happens several times a day. It's just not something a male will understand or relate to. As a female, at the slightest notion of having to pee, you will have to: disrobe your lower clothing to beyond the knee (essentially restraining primary mobility/handicapping one's self, albeit temporarily), kneel or squat (a scientifically-documented social and biological position of submission), remain completely focused on urination or the like, while maintaining social awareness of the surrounding environment so as not to fall victim to predators all while in a full state of maximum vulnerability, etc. This is absolutely and unequivocally mandatory at the slightest inkling of feeling the need to relieve oneself, if female.
Meanwhile, a dude literally just unzips his fly and goes wherever he wants and in a few moments is on his way. There is a huge physical, social, and most prudently, psychological difference between male and female alleviation of bodily waste.
The slightest feeling of having to use the restroom in a female subconsciously invokes a need for secure privacy away from predators for a prolonged and unknown period of time. For a male, it just makes you want to pee on a tree or something. There is absolutely no comparison and men should be completely removed from the debate itself as they simply aren't biologically equipped to understand (and therefore participate in) said debate.
(a bit beyond the point but just to quell what I foresee as a likely ancillary counter-argument: yes biological male pheromones have an effect on biological females and probably aren't helpful to have around when a female is doing their business in a place intended to place one at ease and be relaxing for one whilst in a state of forced vulnerability.)
That's not entirely unreasonable. But I think it's worth anyone of either sex pointing out in relation to my earlier comment that we're always dealing with layers of culture. There is nothing biologically natural about separating places to urinate and defecate. It's cultural, and we get to decide the cultural norm. The historically recent phenomenon of trans people (edit: as being a subject of public debate) is just another cultural layer that we need to deal with and we get to decide the norm. In fact, we're obligated to do so.
There are different ways to do that and, of course, we ought to be respectful of each other's sensibilities since no matter which way you work it, someone is going to have an ostensibly "reasonable" objection based on their feelings. However, it's disingenuous, I think, to conduct the debate as if layer 1 of contingent sociality (separated bathrooms) is somehow inextricable from our biology such that we can bypass it as an issue for debate. This falsely and covertly positions layer 1 as determined by some biological essence and therefore similarly falsely and covertly positions any compromise taking into account layer 2 (the nascent needs and desires of trans people) as inadmissible.
Layer 1 is culturally sedimented because at some point we made that choice based on the circumstances of the time, which were not a simple matter of biological essentialism as things have not always been that way. And now, a long time later, the circumstances have changed and therefore we need to make another choice, but again, based on social reality. Because that is all that is relevant here. Let's not distract from that.
So you're saying it's a human right, not yet a civil right. My guess is that the issue will remain in flux for the next couple of generations. Where I think the government should act now is in researching successful and unsuccessful transitions so that people can make informed choices. States should decide how they want their public facilities used. Private facilities (like at a private school or coliseum) will probably be made available in a way that pleases the majority of the population, because that's how capitalism works. It probably won't ever get to the point of establishing civil rights, and that view is coming from pessimism about the outcome of trans activism.
It's not even recent.
Let's call it recent to the public sphere of debate. But, yes, as far as I've heard, the general idea of gender not matching sex is not recent at all. It's just been differently culturally processed. So, yes, thanks for the correction.
You are incorrect. There is no range.
But regardless, technologies of body modification have reached the point where there need be no obvious physical way to determine who has what chromosomes. And even if there were and you were to enforce that, you would be putting trans men into women's bathrooms, many of whom look like the men you supposedly want to keep out of bathrooms because of their physical appearance. So, biological essence really recedes into irrelevancy as a consideration. Woman are not made uncomfortable (if they are made uncomfortable at all) by someone's chromosomes.
I’ve said before, if someone passes then no one is any the wiser. They aren’t women though. There is more to being a woman than looking like one. Not that very many trans women “pass”
I may be mis-understanding him, but Harry seems to be very concerned. I'm not.
I think there is a bit of Handmaid’s Tale vibe from the dismissive attitude to exclusive women’s spaces.
Both. Yes, people should be concerned about the erosion of women’s spaces and no, a man can never be a woman and vice versa.
I’m amazed any rational person thinks otherwise.
I'm not interested in trying to brow-beat anyone into changing their definitions. But, seeing as who "passes" is not something that can be objectively policed---e.g. trans men, who, under your biological-sex-first definition, are women, but many of which wouldn't pass for women either in terms of their physical appearance, and so logically you would allow in women's bathrooms without passing physically---I don't see much of a practical difference here.
It won’t be policed. It will be fine like it has always been done.
If it won't be policed then everyone effectively has a choice and what choice is taken might vary with time. So, we effectively agree.
Men don’t routinely go in women’s spaces and will be challenged by women if they do. Hopefully, then arrested and prosecuted. Thankfully, most men respect boundaries regarding toilets etc.
You don't care one way or the other? :up:
Challenged on what basis? Physically, a trans man---who you must want to be in women's bathrooms because you claim they are women due to their biological sex---can easily look more like a man than a trans woman, so it can't be a physical basis because that would contradict your exclusive focus on biological sex.
I think the problem is that for many, biological sex is a component of the social construct of gender, and I think it's pretty clear that this is true for the majority.
Since gender is a social construct, and therefore fluid to some extent, we might imagine a point where the idea of gender changes so that biology is no longer a part of it. We aren't there, though. The best an activist can do is demand that we should be there.
How can you feel “My body doesn’t match my sense of self?” without some sort of assumption of what it is supposed to feel like to have any particular body and be any particular self?
There is essentialism, objectivity/biology/psychology, and normativity laced all throughout this modern question of gender. We should admit it.
My only policy issue here would have to do with children - let’s let children avoid this mess as long as possible. Let’s keep them out of wondering about this. Because kids just want to know where we are telling them they can go take a pee. It’s up to us to keep it that simple for them and protect their innocence of these questions. We don’t need to experiment with the psychology of all children for the sake of a few children. That’s irresponsible towards all of them.
But forgoing the policy discussion, I’d love to see if we could disambiguate any thing here on TPF. Gender probably should be an easy one.
We should all be able to admit as an objective fact what a male is and normally does with his body, and what a female is and normally does with hers. I think it is precisely because of what a normal woman looks like, acts like, wears, and has for body parts, that a trans man comes to seek some resolution by transitioning to a woman. He wants to be a she - both being clearly distinct to him.
So protecting a clear definition of male and female and man and woman, protects men, trans men, women and trans women. Without men and women first, you can never have trans men and trans women second; and you can’t have a trans man or trans woman first, because then there would be no discussion or thoughts of transitioning.
We need penises to be penises, vaginas to be vaginas, and bosoms to be bosoms first, for it to be any fun to play with all of these body parts.
So we can, and maybe should, admit this is the same as saying we need to protect men qua men sometimes and women qua women sometimes. And today, by protect, I mean disambiguate gender, so we don’t lose sight of men qua men and women qua women, and ruin the future possibility of anyone feeling comfortable in any body.
One step at a time. The designation of male/man and female/woman based on penis and vagina should be basic. The complexity can only be layered on top of that simplicity first. One step in the transition at a time. Solid understanding of “male” and bright line distinction from “female” has to be the first step.
I’m not bothered in the slightest where a trans man goes. Preferably the men’s room. Most of them will want to go to the men’s room. However, if a trans man wishes to use the female restroom they would be allowed as they are female.
There is no person ever that is a bit of both. Not one. Sex is binary.
Well, it's culturally dependent. Where I live---Thailand---we are very much there. The idea of preventing trans women from using a woman's bathroom isn't at all on the radar. I don't think it's an issue in my home country of Ireland either.
I get you in terms of the U.S., but I'm trying to work out on what one could consistently base an objection when biological sex and gender have no necessary connection because they are based on different categories of reality and gender is technologically mutable. Does it mean that objectors want anyone regardless of their biological sex to get arrested if they look too masculine? That, as I said, is inconsistent with wanting to protect biological women from encroaches on their space by biological men because it discriminates on a level, the physical, that now has no necessary connection to the biological in practice and so the objection could be applied to biological women as well as biological men.
This is something that I find puzzling. Can anyone explain?
100%. If there were no cultural issues then there would be no issues in men and women sharing spaces. However, there are issues.
That means your objection is not based on what someone looks like or what physical bits they have. And, if so, what does it matter whether trans women pass for women?
There clearly are issues and it's up to you as a society to work them out to your preference. But any rational social policy should be logically consistent with itself at least. It's not logically consistent to base a policy of disbarring people from women's spaces on women being disturbed by the physical presence of men and then base entry to those spaces not on physical characteristics defining such presence but ultimately on something that can be entirely unseen like chromosomes.
How (philosophically) does a male (if there is such a thing since it’s a spectrum) become a woman? It isn’t how they dress, what they do for a job, what they watch/consume etc. so what is it?
Have you details of a person who is both male and female?
It would be based on physical characteristics in the vast vast majority of the time. It is obvious who is male and female unless a lot of money is spent on synthetic hormones and surgery. I would speculate it would be still possible to give the correct sex of the person.
If there are a few anomalies then so be it.
Let's leave it there then. Thank you for the chat.
In the most extreme case there's ovotesticular syndrome, where someone has both ovarian and testicular tissue, and can be caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism.
It’s an interesting subject.
But they are either male or female. They aren’t both.
Then which are they? And what about them determines this?
Well, depending on what school of thought you choose to subscribe to (which is a civil right in and of itself, right to choose how one governs one's life choices ie. religion) "rights" are merely social constructs. Basically, as much as I would wish otherwise, no divine power is going to incinerate you if you intentionally violate another person's sense of well-being, safety, or dignity. Society has mechanisms (law enforcement, court systems, etc.) that do their best to do so (proactively via enforcement and retroactively via pressing charges), and little else. That's all we really have to work with here.
Bearing that in mind, we have social expectations, norms, and ideals. More pertinently, codified laws that the public largely agrees with as either necessary or that are socially advantageous in nature.
Harassment is a good example. You have a right to insult someone and degrade them with your words and (legal) actions. But in focused continuity, day in and day out, that amounts to the charge of stalking, defamation, slander, etc. There's a reason for these things, and I'm sure you understand what those are.
Legally, I can walk around an entire city all day everyday saying "You're going to die!" to every person I meet. I can do so without technically and legally committing any crime. After all, biology states, yes, all human persons will die at some point. That's not a threat. It's a fact. But there's a reason we discourage people from doing that and perhaps punish those who do. Because it's just not right. Yet, ironically, it is their right to do so if they wish.
To circle back, it's a social expectation, no different than the idea that a child should be able to safely reach adulthood where they can make their own choices before being put into unsafe, dangerous, or cruel situations. Or that a man has a right to work so as to feed himself without undue burden or hazard.
Legally, I can walk up to a small child with his family and say something like "I could kill you, your dad, and your mom in one punch each and there wouldn't be a thing you could do to stop me" and laugh in all their faces as the kid cries and whoever they're with considers committing a violent crime against me that in return I would be able to lethally defend myself against and walk out of court scot-free after doing so. Technically, I didn't commit a crime. Did I? I spoke a true fact (hypothetically, in this situation) and it was my "right" to do so. Point being, not all laws have to be intrinsically derived of some "universal human right" to be necessary and desired.
No, like Sir Baden said, apparently (and in my opinion unfortunately) gender-separated places of defecation and the like are not "biologically natural", or whatever he said. I would like him to cite that as well but moving on. As society progresses, so should our laws and understanding of what makes society a place people would willingly defend with their life and blood vs. that which isn't and perhaps we would fight against to destroy so a better one can take root. We either go backwards or we go forwards, and without rules and standards, the direction is quite clear. It's very simple.
Men with ovotesticular DSD have azoospermia and usually display a Sertoli-cell only pattern on histological examination of the testes. Therefore, fertility is very unlikely, even with assisted reproductive techniques. Leydig cell function tends to decrease over time, and testosterone suppletion is necessary in most adult men. Normal menstrual cycles, and possibly fertility, have been observed in some women with ovotesticular DSD and conserved ovarian tissue and a uterus; however, many women develop oligo- or amenorrhea and families should be counseled about the likelihood of infertility (Boucekkine et al., 1994; Verkauskas et al., 2007). Although historically most individuals with ovotesticular DSD have been raised as females, scarce data on psychosexual function suggest an equal or even better outcome in males (Verkauskas et al., 2007).
That doesn't answer the question.
Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.
I don't think a social construct has to have some "consistent base" other than community buy-in. If people require a person to have male biological sex in order to be a "real man" then biology is part of their gender construct. Their attitudes don't have to be logical.
Quoting Baden
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Actually that was interesting to research. I will no longer state all individuals are either male or female. Some are mosaic 46,XX/46 XY
500 affected individuals have been reported to date.
Some of this has already been done including studies such these I googled rather quickly. A community sampling of rapists and the guiding factors involved in why they did what they did. Here is an article discussing how people are targeted and what environmental factors involve themselves in it. I'm sure there is already a plethora more of such information which has been conducted and refined over the last twenty years. If we are talking public policy it's best to know thy enemy and these resources inherently provide that.
Obviously, this should already be if not already is a part of most educational courses in High School or College. However, I can't attest to their efficacy. That would involve others investigating the 'successfulness' in these on paper forced courses which freshman have to go through when entering these new life domains.
However, what may be missing or lacking is wider public outreach beyond the initial years if not the improvement of programs geared towards certain businesses or government positions. DEI is the new buzzword for such approaches which could cover this on College campuses and beyond but has been supposedly either gutted or removed altogether. @Harry Hindu celebrates this. . . and then he adds nothing to replace it or advocate for an improvement of it's material. Perhaps I'm wrong but he hasn't been rather vocal on this topic matter and seems to just burn all bridges thinking its better we just swim.
Of a few articles that I read over they seem to note that there is a presence of anti-social mental issues among these offenders but not all of them particularly suffer from this and its not a one fits all diagnosis. Some are fairly similar to you or your neighbor until compounding actions or environmental factors impact a rash horrendous decision. Part of this being possible misconceptions about sexual worth and what women 'owe this person'. For this reason I suspect approaches already taken to mitigate against homegrown terrorists should suit us as well.
Quoting Malcolm Parry Well. . . you know what's weird. Feminists are not unaware of the seemingly contradictory manner in which they both advocate for better representation. . . while also attempting to subdue and remove gender stereotypes.
If you emphasize womanhood you also whole sale will import in a number of cultural/societal biases about what a women should do or how they should conduct themselves, etc. However, if you don't do this and attempt to heavily blur the line to the point that all you consider is biological differences then there isn't much of a connecting tissue and it becomes more nebulous what the group is meant to stand for. Am I supposed to band with you ONLY because of what I have between my legs and nothing else? If I band with you because of societal expectations A, B, and C what if I don't hold to those or in matter of fact I contradict them?
If you desire for gender equality or equity but not necessarily gender neutrality then you have to admit both explicitly or implicitly that guiding lines towards specific gender roles will be created. They may even be given moral, religious, or societal support and therefore advocating for enforcing an in/out group mentality inevitably. Which come back to bite us as regards gender equality as its not within law but in terms of social engineering that suddenly we implicitly seem to create our own 'desirable' and 'un-desirable' traits.
So it seems the discussion here also concerns among the rape issue. . . gender neutrality, equality, and equity. Your opinions on the matter only seem to support the notion that we are inherently not ready as a society for gender neutrality even though we are moving in that direction.
Quoting Harry Hindu There are two sides to this. . . social expectations. . . and personal gender expression.
Quoting Harry Hindu Same with varieties of other clothing, physical effects, and even biological changes as minor as pierced ears to plastic surgery.
Go figure, there is a tremendous variety of what people can or already do in flaunting their gender expression for a variety of not entirely exclusive reasons.
Thanks for the comprehensive reply. Any actions that prevent anti social, coercive and violent behaviour are to be welcomed and encouraged. However, we have to deal with society we live in and its cultural norms. These norms can change dramatically very swiftly. 20th century was such a time.
Who we are is dependent upon many factors and I think social factors and the “village” are a dominant influence. I’m in UK and whilst it has changed a lot there are still some strong strands of thought and behaviour running through society.
In UK most people can say, do, dress how they like. It is wonderful. There are pockets where this may not be the case but on the whole we are an okay tolerant bunch. So men and women are free to pursue their lives as they wish.
However, there are some areas where women are at a disadvantage and there needs to be some measures put in place to allow women to live a full life.
Sport is obvious and I cannot see how anyone can object to women being allowed to compete exclusively with other women.
Also, places where woman are vulnerable and uncomfortable (in our culture) changing rooms, bathrooms, refuges, lesbian dating sites etc and men need excluding.
Society in uk is pretty good at allowing women to prosper and lead full lives (there are challenges) but society should still allow for personal choice. Most of my mates are blokes and I drink pints. My choice is not gender neutral. It is changing, the youngsters are much less rigid in friendships and that is great but until society has eradicated the problems women face they need certain parts of society to be male free.
I cannot see what is controversial or inconsistent with my stance.
A man can be a trans woman but they are still male. They can do anything a woman can because women can do anything they wish. However, they are men and should be excluded from women’s exclusive places for the reasons I’ve outlined.
We are living in a time where access to knowledge, comfort and a world of exciting possibilities but happiness seems to elude so many people. Philosophy should have the answers but no one wants to listen.
They believe they are man when they are a woman. That is the delusion.
Pleading to authority is a logical fallacy.
I asked what makes sex so special in that someone can identify as the opposite sex, but if someone identifies as a cat or an alien, then that qualifies as a type of delusional disorder but the former does not. This goes back to my argument of inconsistency where you are accepting some extraordinary claim without extraordinary evidence yet reject other extraordinary claims with no evidence. You are cherry-picking the validity of extraordinary claims for political purposes.
Also, science and medicine can be influenced by politics. Receiving grants is dependent upon your studies aligning with the current government. Plastic surgeons are happy to support trans-gender surgery for obvious reasons. The way I see it is that the plastic surgeons are taking over the jobs of the psychologists in this area.
There is the case where a tax-payer funded study on the effects of puberty blockers that went unpublished for fear it might be "weaponized" by their political opponents. What else is being hidden? This is why it is imperative that political parties be abolished.
This argument stems from a misunderstanding of what science is in that scientific knowledge in not written in stone and is meant to be challenged with logical alternatives and arguments.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
I'd be willing to bet a year's salary that if men started advocating for shared public bathrooms 30-40 years ago, before all this trans-gender ideology started, the left would be screaming and yelling about protecting women's rights and safe spaces.
Quoting substantivalism
You don't know shit about what I think because you don't actually read my posts. I already told you that I have talked about long-term solutions for society in other recent political threads on this forum and then provided an immediate solution, which you ignored, so stop trying to link my name to shit I haven't said or implied.
You appear to be equivocating.
Here are two plausible interpretations of your claim:
1. They believe they are biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
2. They believe they are non-biologically male when they are biologically female. That is the delusion.
If you mean (1) then your claim is false because they do not believe that they are biologically male.
If you mean (2) then your conclusion is a non sequitur.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's not a logical fallacy to defer to what mathematicians say about mathematics, to what physicists say about physics, or to what psychiatrists say about psychiatry.
Psychiatrists do not classify gender incongruence as a psychosis. Unless you have studied psychiatry you are not qualified to have an informed opinion.
:up:
There's a growing number of detransitioners who say that transitioning was an attempt to cope with trauma. It's very common for detransitioners to claim it was too easy to access gender affirming care, and that people should be carefully screened and councilled, especially if they already have mental health issues.
These issues should be addressed without the aggressive activist commotion.
Welcome to the forum. This is something I would like to question you about. What, or rather who, dictates that how one expresses themself or presents themselves to others must be contingent or follow some formulae or set of expectations? Where is this "grand consortium of social interaction" I can visit to better understand how I can better be a male (or female)?
I suppose, specifically, what are the list of "traits", characteristics, or "mannerisms" that "encapsulate" or otherwise define "male expression" and "female expression", respectively. Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?
Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?
Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances. Meaning, just because things happen to be a certain way for most people in most situations, that's just how evolution (or whatever else you believe) happened to have turned out on this one planet this one time. Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?
(no pressure. seriously welcome to the forum, this is just, as you can imagine, a highly impassioned, and at times, personal debate for many. Remember: In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them. Though sometimes, as you might tell, the lines can get a bit fuzzy during certain types of subject matter. :razz: )
How does gender identity manifest itself? A man (biologically) feels his gender is female. What does that mean?
I simply mean Gender Identity in the sense of how one views and portrays oneself. And that in of itself depends on how an individual views gender. For example, someone may view their own gender as female, so they dress and act in a way that they see as more feminine, trying to express their identity as female. Gender Identity (idk why I keep capitalising it) manifests itself through how an individual views gender, and how they ascribe gender to themselves.
I'd argue that no one dictates it, and that there is no specific formula. Gender identity and expression is entirely relevant on one's own experiences. One part of the world may view "girly" completely differently than another part, and hence someone who expresses themselves as "female" would express themselves differently based on what their culture is like. Basically, gender identity is how an individual understands gender, and where they place themselves in that understanding.
"Do you agree with the traditional or stereotypical assortment (ie. male: brashness, boldness. aggression/dominance?; female: whimsy, "daintiness", passivity/submission?) or something else?"
--
There is something to be said for the effects of testosterone, and what that has done for society's view of what "male" means, but there have always been exceptions to the stereotypes, and I think everyone is free to interpret gender as they please.
"Who's to say in some fictional village the female inhabitants just so happened to have evolved larger and more "aggressive" than the male inhabitants who together in turn resemble a living antithesis of modern gender norms (ie. the females are larger, louder, more violent, let's say and the males are smaller, quiter, and more obedient or otherwise on average are submissive to the females). What about that sort of scenario?" --
This is exactly my point! In this kind of society, someone who portrays themselves as female might act more aggressive, louder, and those who express as male may be more submissive. Of course, stereotypes and gender may not be the same to all people, so I wouldn't be surprised to see some outliers portraying themselves as submissive females or dominant males (or something else entirely).
"Point being, it seems like you're referring to social constructs (that sure, obviously are derived from *circumstantial* biological norms) that still, can vary or change wildly depending on many circumstances." --
Yes. I believe that you are allowed to interpret gender in anyway you want, but that is typically shaped by how you grew up and the culture you were raised around. Perspective is shaped by experience, and that's why people who express themselves as male or female (or something else) tend to do so by portraying the stereotypical "traits" that are associated with the gender they identify with. It's simply what their view of being that gender means.
" Is that really reliable simply because it's all we know? Ignorance is not knowledge, now is it?"
--
Not at all! That's what's beautiful about the world, in my opinion, that there is no "Right" answer, no way to ever truly know something. I'd argue that ignorance has to be knowledge, or else we know nothing. Science can't answer the questions of purpose, meaning, and morality. Science is simply us trying to understand the world we live in. Science is facts, and it is completely up to us to interpret those facts. You say that societal gender constructs are unreliable because they are how evolution randomly happened, and therefore are random, but can you say for sure that a divine hand did not guide said evolution? Can you say for sure that anything else could have happened? And even if something else could have happened, should we really include "what-ifs?" in our interpretation of the real world? Society and humanity have developed as they have, perhaps for a reason, perhaps by chance, but I say we should accept it as it is. There is no way to say whether these gender constructs are reliable or not, but they certainly do exist, and certainly need to be addressed in any interpretation of gender identity and expression.
"In philosophy we savagely attack ideas, not the persons who hold them."
--
I know! Don't worry, I don't hold any ill-intent towards anyone just for having a different opinion than I. Everyone is allowed to interpret anything in their own way, and while I may disagree with it, there's typically no way to prove who is right when it comes to interpretation and opinion. :D
Surely that is an extremely outdated view of what it is to be a woman. How does gender identity women dress and act? Is a woman who likes masculine pursuits and clothes a different gender even if she thinks her gender is female?
I find the concept extremely odd and old fashioned.
Not really? I'm fairly confident that the majority of the populace believes in "boys" and "girls" clothing. And I am also fairly confident that most people, when thinking of a female or male, imagine them wearing that clothing. Most people who identify as a different gender than what they were born as dress that way as well, I feel, as it gives them a sense of validation in their own eyes. Not outdated at all.
"Is a woman who likes masculine pursuits and clothes a different gender even if she thinks her gender is female?" --
Nope! Again, Gender is based on how an individual interprets gender, and their gender identity is based on how they place themselves in terms of gender. I'm only saying that people typically seek to express their gender by wearing clothes typically ascribed to that gender. Others just like to wear clothes of the other gender, or simply don't care what they wear. Clothes do not impact gender, but gender can impact how you choose to express yourself.
What does that mean? How do you interpret your gender?
What I mean by that is that how you view gender is relative. There will be different stereotypes/ general images of gender based on where and how you were raised. What gender means to someone varies from person to person. So someone's gender is the gender they identify as and how they view that gender. It would be too hard to describe all of my thoughts on gender, but I was assigned male at birth, and I still consider myself male. I do like to crossdress though, and while I know to most people it's not a "gender", I consider myself a femboy. Basically I'm a guy who likes to be a little girly at times. This is what I mean by it's based on how you interpret it. I interpret gender in a way that allows for the "gender" of femboy, while others may not. And I identify with the gender of femboy, therefore giving me my Gender Identity.
Which is perfectly fine. A man can be whatever he wants. It is the gender component that I see as problematic. The term that was used to explain societal differences between the sexed has been hijacked imho. A feminine man is still a man. It makes no difference to the world except in sport and women’s exclusive places. Which should be based on biology. Not what someone feels.
Is femboy a gender or just a description of a type of man?
Doesn’t everyone stipulate the following according to the law of non-contradiction:
Male is different than not-Male, or Female.
Female is different than not-Female, or Male.
Same with, Man is different than Woman.
This is the only way we can think and speak about these things.
If the above is confusing to us, we will get nowhere in a discussion about gender and the further complexities of being a person.
If we can designate any particular thing or trait we want as “female” or “feminine” or “woman”, how on earth can we figure out what a trans thing is in distinction from those female things?
If we want to think and talk about these things, we need to first understand and keep clear how Man can never be not-Man or Woman, at the same time in the same manner. Only then can we look at what a person with a penis, pants and a girlfriend is best referred to as, versus what a person with a penis, dress and surgery to add bigger breasts is called, and what is different about these two persons and what is the same about them.
We don’t just get to pick how to use the word “male” or “woman”, like we don’t just get to pick whether we are born with a penis and a tendency to like dating girls or dating men or wearing dresses or pants, etc. That’s not how language works and not how nature works.
I mean, we can reinvent uses of words and make new words to mean identify new distinctions, but then, some things are just impractical and defeat the purpose of speaking, and we shouldn’t lose sight of the things we meant all along the way. And we can reinvent ourselves and decide to chop off body parts and add others, but if we want to use terms to discuss what we are doing the chopped penises have to be “male/man” parts, and chopped mammaries have to be female.
I can’t start my sentence here with “I” and expect you to understand I mean me, and then end this same sentence where “I” now refers to you, or, who the hell is talking to whom here, about whom???
Gender is one of those practical things first. The differences between male and female and man and woman are simple, stark and obvious. The nuances and complexities of social constructions and culture may demand new words, but cannot defeat old meanings and uses, otherwise we are merely turning something simple, stark and obvious into something complex, ironically, all for the sake of disambiguating and clarification.
Right? It’s like a stairway, we may step off the first step, but that step can’t disappear on us or nothing will be supporting the second step we now stand on.
It is nonsense to discuss and figure out how male and female overlap, without discussing and figuring out how male and female cannot overlap first.
I suppose that depends on how you interpret gender ;D
And you can argue about genitals there for sure. You can totally separate sports based on sex assigned at birth or by genitals. But what is a "Women's exclusive place"? Like a women's restroom? There is an argument to be made there, but why does it matter which gender uses which bathroom? For a locker room, I can understand not wanting someone with the opposing genitalia, but I feel like those should be individual changing/showering places anyways, regardless of genitals.
You're right in that we don't control what sex we are born as, and there definitely is a division between male and female in terms of a scientific definition. But I'd argue that there is a difference between the sex you are born as and the gender you identify as. Even without chemical or surgical changes, there are psychological differences between someone who was born male and identifies male and someone who was born male and identifies female. When surgery and drugs get involved, it gets even more complex, as even the scientific definition starts to get blurry when it comes to biological changes. The problem is again, the scientific facts are there: There is a difference between those born with a penis and those born with a vagina. But science does not say how that relates to gender, as how the sex you were born as relates to current gender is a matter of opinion. If you say that gender is a fact of science, then you are talking about Sex Assigned At Birth, which many consider to NOT be the same as gender.
What I’m saying is, I wouldn’t be able to see the difference between the sex I was born as and the gender I identify as, if “male” and “female” and “man” and “woman” and “gender” had fluid, changeable referents and meanings.
--
If you view gender as the same thing as Sex Assigned At Birth, then sure, the two are the same. There is nothing wrong with viewing it that way. But other people may not see it that way, and they have just as much of a right to see it their way as you do to see it yours.
So let us dive back and look at all your comments. . .
Quoting Harry Hindu Here you seem to misunderstand that you can have a coarse biological classification scheme and yet still not use that for legal or public policy. It's a coarse concept and not a fine-grained concept so it doesn't really allow us to pin point precisely on the characteristics people actually find notable, attractive, socially successful, etc. It's not meant to is the point as its a general concept that doesn't capture that fine detail and if it did it only did so by casting the widest possible net to get a statistically significant ensemble.
Second, in the previous forum series of posts you were talking about, or quibbling, over the inconsistency with defining gender as relegated to social construction and combining that with the language certain transgender people have used. There was also a heavy biological angle as regards talking biological markers and biological determinism.
Most of your replies felt like a critique of any form of anti-realism. "If it's socially constructed then it can be undone, anything can go, and it makes following it pointless because there is no grounding. How can you say what you say because according to you I can invent whatever I want in a contrary fashion."
It's because we are talking normative pragmatism. Realism and anti-realism are popular sticking points for discussions about moral worth, racial presence, gender roles, etc. However, as many other people on this forum had made clear and so has modern meta-philosophy there is sort of a pragmatic irrelevance in certain or most situations as regards these debates. Whatever a realist wants to espouse as a 'real' feature of the world or derivative of one the anti-realist could just as easily argue is merely a stubborn pattern we've latched onto. Bonus points if they present a method through which they can actually change it through a variety of means.
However, its funnier because when you point out in numerous posts about how biologically laden our perceptions, conscious states, gender presumptions, or morality you just relabeled the discussion. Now it's not social construction versus biology rather its what is impossible to biologically change/influence (currently) and what can be changed.
So when a person says gender is a social construct I guess I can just translate this into your lingo as its a series of biological traits that are more easily unlearned and changed. It doesn't really much change anything as regards the definition of sex nor does it actually impact the discussion because we've all already agreed there are features which are more easily changed and others which are not.
It's like how people might define the difference between natural and manmade. The pure naturalists quibbles to the manmade proponent that, "Well, technically, everything is natural including the supplies and biology of the people doing the making. Checkmate!" Which is a horrible and redundant semantic shift which doesn't actually clarify whether these biological features which are more easily changed/more difficult to be changed/impossible to be changed should be given some legal, moral, or normative worth to influence policy among other aspects of our society. Including to what degree any of those features are meant to define what we call social roles and personal senses of identity along with the classification schemes for those.
Third, the solutions you gave are not new nor do they actually address the mental health issues of the men in question who are prone to commit to and potentially could but haven't done any assaults'. The social rearing behind it and the public policies/programs there in to possibly cast a wider net which they have been falling through.
Your political discussions recently were just you quibbling over the current two party-ism and limited government. Nothing specific about what they are supposed to do, what policies to be proactive and not purely reactive about this, as well as how to cast social programs to mitigate against homegrown rapists.
(I'm sorry I keep editing new ideas keep coming in. Whoops.) In a previous post you noted something about DEI and the 'nonsense' of anti-discriminatory practices within the government or in society at large. Not realizing that laws have to be combined with social policies and outreach as well otherwise we are only dealing with one side of the problem. You've replaced it with nothing as if by enforcing and having a law against sexual assault makes it vanish which. . . it hasn't. The people who could have potentially assulted someone or are a mental ticking time bomb into doing so. . . still exist. They existed before the law was in place and they are still present after it went into practice.
@Michael Am I wrong in presuming you can just recast the debate in terms of the above and nothing much would change?
No, I’m saying if I didn’t have a measuring stick that had nothing to do with how I identify things, I couldn’t take measure of what my assignment at birth meant or what sex meant or male or not-male, what is the same, what is different…
Quoting Fire Ologist
I think I understand what you mean, and I somewhat agree? I think that the idea of what "male" and "female" are dictated by your own experiences, including experiencing the differences between the two. Contrasting different genders is one way in which we form our understandings on gender.
It is, though. This is a really well-known phenomenon, to the point that males are routinely excluded from crisis shelters (even children of the victim, if over the age of I think seven where I live). The reason is because the risk of causing further trauma, or at least curtailing rehabilitation, is far, far more weighty than the possibility a male is going to get a bit upset about being excluded from a female safe space. The point here is that the female part does the lifting. Violating this isn't something males have open to them, without force. It is for the in-group to decide. I don't think that's at all controversial (and in this case, it seems empirically reasonable).
Quoting fdrake
I would go ahead and ask all of your female network their views on IPV, and the roles of males in the wider picture. I think you'll get some pretty stark responses (I also note flipping between academic record, and personal anecdote/story-telling might be making this harder for us. I think we're both doing that).
Let me know what acts are considered under this head. I imagine the study, and not the claim, is misleading for this reason. A more telling study would be this one. Even taking your point (incl. references) as wholesale reliable, and accurate this further consideration makes it pale and unhelpful in context.
Again, transwomen are four times more likely to commit a sex crime, and I'm happy to egregiously calibrate for benefit-of-the-doubt to two times more likely. Fully two times more likely to commit a sex crime than non-trans males. This is an insurmountable obstacle to those who would claim either parity in risk, or a claim that transwomen are somehow magically female in behavioural trends. I again, also mention, plenty of trans people recognize this/these issues. They are sick and tired of people talking for them by either prevaricating or lying about what's going on in their community. They want acceptance, and the complete inability for social groups. I am willing to take them at face value, given that the other side of the coin is invariably (in my personal experience) aggressive, unwilling to even listen, sometimes violent and massively misogynistic. I tend to take the less-hysterical of the two sides more seriously - particularly when some empirical considerations fall to that side and it is, on any account, possibly to see "being trans" as a mental illness (dysphoria - not a moral claim). I don't think there's anything wrong with that. My experiences support the data that I am aware of (and the view of females in my orbit besides three I can name - one of which is severely mentally ill). I simply don't have anything to go on which would lead me to conclusions such as yours.
Furries are not able to compete in dog shows. No idea why self-ID is allowed to violate categories in humans, but not among dogs.
Quoting fdrake
Because there is no controlling data in involved. Bit of a non sequitur. Nevertheless, I can see the point trying to be made. They are all female. Trans women are male. Males carry certain patterns of behaviour , unless we're going to either shirk evolution or pretend that 'soul's exist giving rise to the 'wrong body' nonsense. Being female inherently reduces the risk of harm. Intimate partner 'violence' may be relatively even - but intimate partner harm is immensely skewed in one direction. This is inarguable. There is no epidemic of wives killing their husbands.
Males harm females. That is almost a truism of humans. Historically, currently and there is no obvious end to it. Trans women are male.
I see no need to go further... (other than acknowledging the equally sound point made by the two comments after your reply that IPV by females is almost exclusively in response to abuse).
An opportunity to make a very clear point though:
Quoting Wolfy48
I agree. But gender doesn't dictate much of anything in day-to-day life. Sex does. It is just the muddling of terms to service a mental state that has lead to any of hte current controversy. Just don't do that.. feelings, particularly male feelings, aren't arguments. I am not particularly concerned with how upset a male gets for not being allowed into female spaces. I simply don't care. That is just something you'll need to suck up. I'm not allowed into women's changing rooms either. Difference is, I don't want to. This is now getting into personal 'gripe' area, but there seems a trend among TRAs that they need to be in womens bathrooms. If the issue is that you need to be affirmed, that's not something you can put on someone else. If the issue is you're worried about being unsafe in male spaces, go to neutral spaces. If you require women's spaces you have a hidden motive (well, no - but it certainly isn't safety if you require something more than a safer space).
My argument here is: They are delineated. There seems to be inherent differences in abilities between these two groups, in those areas. I don't think a female has ever made it to the final table of the World Series of Poker and there is a 21/1000 ratio of female to male grandmasters in Chess. I don't have a view on this issue because there is no risk to life or limb - but males competing in female poker tournaments are clearly at an advantage. I make no further on that.
Quoting Michael
No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous.
Quoting unenlightened
No, not at all. When I was young 'fairy' was still a social-life-ending epithet. You have not engaged my question, though. If you truly think there were swathes of people unable to tell you from a female because you had long hair, I'm not interested in conversing further. If you're willing to accept that a feigned confusion to support bigotry was the go, we're good.
Quoting unenlightened
It seems, contrary to your rather glib and silly parenthesis, that this is the case. Where people are found in more states of undress, more assaults occur (the home, particularly). But this isn't all that relevant so happy to say sure - and leave it.
Quoting unenlightened
Humans are 93+% accurate at telling sex from face alone. This is a non-argument.
Quoting frank
Fixed it. All good.
I get the feeling there are more comments to add, so I apologise for what might be a triple post here.
A misleading term which refers to something that isn't real. There are zero humans who are not male or female. Your quotes discuss aberrant phenotype only. That does not determine sex, it differentiates it. I am becoming less able to continually repeat these things as I gave sources for these claims earlier.
This makes it extremely clear what we're talking about. Males, or females. Again, these aren't my ideas - these are what the sources given tell us.
Quoting fdrake
Cool. Then given the risk of 'a man' assaulting a woman is something like 5/100 - no more gendered spaces. Yay! Murders can have guns. Drug users can have access to their drugs without oversight. Yay!
Obviously this is facetious, but its a true illustration of the disrespect of this retort to female anxiety about males.
Quoting fdrake
You did not, as gone over in previous comment/s. Children probably engage in personal violence with family members more than any other group but..... What would we say here??? There is no fucking risk.
No. Most laws are vague and require several years (sometimes decades) of case law to figure out what's really going on. Sometimes judges admonish the legislature for this reason. Many laws Icannot be adequately particularised. So, i wont engage that particular charge.
Quoting substantivalism
I can't tell if you're being facetious here. You have taken something I said and suggested something I didn't comes along with it. If that's your view, I disagree with it.
Quoting substantivalism
No. This is the entire premise of the side of this issue I am on. Preventative measures to avoid the inevitable abuse females will face when more males are in their intimate spaces (empirically wrong or right, I'm just saying that's the line of thinking).
This is the nub of the issue. The term seems to have been hijacked.
See 46,XX/46,XY.
Some of their cells have an SRY gene, some don't. Are they male or female according to your distinction? Is the existence of a single SRY gene sufficient to qualify them as male, even if the majority of their cells have an XX karyotype and they are phenotypically female? Do they become female if we then cut out this single SRY cell? Or are they only male if the majority of their cells have an XY karyotype/have an SRY gene?
And let's consider some hypothetical 46,XX/46,XY person with an equal number of XX cells and XY cells, ambiguous genitalia, and either bilateral oviotestis or streak gonads. Are they male or female?
I suppose the rational counterargument would be: ridiculously rare genetic abnormalities aside, how does that change a thing? I'm sympathetic to any person who exists and agree people who commit violence for any reason don't qualify as human and therefore aren't subject to human rights (ie. therefore, effectively, I am against people who commit violence against LGBT persons), which as a strict matter of fact happens to make me an ally of yours. That aside. What of the argument made before, that, just because, in rare occasions, humans may be born with less or more than 2 arms, therefore, because of that, humans should be medically and scientifically defined as "organisms that have anywhere from 1 - 3 arms."
Sure, the few hundred people out of billions and billions who meet that exceedingly strange criteria, may qualify as intersex and have a right to identify as the gender they choose, whereas anyone else is basically committing the highly offensive social offense of "stolen valor" and belittling the suffering and plight of said few individuals. No different than an able-bodied person parking in a handicap spot thus depriving the few who do suffer from such their rights, dignity, and above all quality of life. Can we agree on that?
Wrong. You continue to purposely misunderstand what I have written. If legal or public policy is not based in reality, then what use is it? Do you make this same case for all scientific conclusions, like on the environment? Do you not use scientific data to support the idea that the environment is changing? Hypocrisy is your brain on politics.
Quoting substantivalism
When did I ever imply such a thing. Notice you had to quote this yourself and did not quote me as saying this. Straw-man.
My argument about social constructs has been in exposing the inconsistency between gender being a social construct and a personal feeling. It cannot be both because one is the antithesis of the other. It is their feeling that is at odds with the social construct. So, which is it? Is gender a feeling or a social construct?
Quoting Michael
Well, I have been asking what a transgender person means when they say they are a "man" or "woman". I am trying to clarify what they mean by asking questions about what they actually mean - something you have been averse to yet is required to solve your problem. I have already laid out the inconsistencies of their definitions of gender as a social construct, feelings, sexist tropes, etc., I have been waiting on you to clarify since you claim to understand them but you'd rather make arguments without any clear definitions of what it is you are actually talking about.
Quoting Michael
It is if that is your only argument and the argument does not address all the other issues I showed with it that you did not reply to (more cherry-picking).
It appears that you are not qualified to have an informed opinion on logic and proper reasoning. Appealing to authority IS a logical fallacy. You need to reconcile what you just said with this simple fact.
Quoting Fire Ologist
Exactly. We need non-contradictory definitions for once - the lack of which is evidence that those that accept what trans-people are claiming simply don't understand what they are claiming. We also need to understand that being a man or woman also being a human and we need to distinguish between what are actual male and female traits and which are just part of the wide range of human behaviors and actually have nothing to do with one's sex. This is what it means to be sexist - to confuse human attributes with sexual attributes - as if wearing a dress (both men and women can wear dresses - there is nothing about them physically that would prevent both from wearing a dress) is what defines you as being a woman as opposed to having a vagina.
Neither. With the overwhelming majority of humans, there's no ambiguity.
The claim that some are making is that every single human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female, and that so-called “intersex” people don’t actually exist.
This claim is simply false, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of both biology and the English language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
The simple fact is that trained psychiatrists are far more qualified than you to determine what does or doesn’t count as a psychosis, and that it is reasonable for those who aren’t trained psychiatrists to defer to their decisions.
Quoting Grammarly
Quoting Logically Fallacious
Quoting Vaia
Quoting Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
I argued the bold type - which you side-stepped.
I see no good reason to disbelieve the DSM and ICD in favour of your bare assertion that gender incongruence is a psychosis.
Cherry-picking. The part you quoted does not take into account the rest of what was said. You need to take the quote as a whole.
All you need to do is show me the evidence, or study that shows how and why someone that identifies as the opposite sex does not qualify as a delusional disorder but other identities do, rather than some psychiatrist just says so. Is there a physical difference in the brain? How exactly did they determine the distinction?
The following seems to support my argument.
Quoting National Library of Medicine
My point is why are you believing one psychiatrist when the issue is still unresolved? Do you question all authorities, or cherry-pick which authorities you believe?
It’s not just “some” psychiatrist. It’s the DSM and the ICD.
So, I don't know where you found this info, all I could find were that trans people were 4 times more likely to be on the receiving end of rape and sexual crime. "Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime" from this source: https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/
If you wish to say such baseless and horrible things, please cite a source or actually read what you're quoting
I disagree here. It is true that those born male are more likely on average to commit violent crime, and are typically stronger than the average female. But saying that all males, or even most males, harm females is just blatantly sexist and wrong. They may be more likely, but that is still such a small part of the population and cannot be attributed to everyone born male.
I think the issue with women's bathrooms is that they are supposed to be for all women, and yet those who identify as women are not allowed because of what they are born as. I understand the concern of being uncomfortable with someone born male being in the same room, but I feel like typically you are in a stall when doing your business, so why does it matter whether or not the person outside of the stall has a dick or not? Sexual assault is not a valid concern for this, as if someone is already so messed up as to commit sexual assault against an innocent, why would saying "you can't go in here" stop them? If someone intended to assault a woman in the women's bathroom, I doubt that saying "men aren't allowed in here" will have any hinderance on their behavior.
--
I would like to see a source on this.
"No. It is an actual fact. Intersex is misleading and describes a variation in phenotype only. I have very clearly been over this. It is simply not an argument in fabour of your position - it is erroneous."
--
I would argue that there is enough variation genetically from person to person that you can't just black and white group people into categories based on what they were born as. Sure, being born with a penis will make you ON AVERAGE more violent, but are you going to claim that every single person born with a cock is more violent than every single female on the planet? No. You can make assumptions based on what someone was born as, but it is not a fact that they will be more violent because of what they were born as.
It certainly isn’t a spectrum like some claim.
Technically, the statistics in America show that African-Americans commit more crimes on average than any other race. Are you suggesting that we start segregating stores into black stores and everyone-else stores to prevent crime? I hope not. While I agree that there is a risk of sexual assault, saying "you can't come in here" does not prevent an abuser from just entering the restroom anyway. Discriminating against who can come in the bathroom would have a negligible effect on sexual assaults, to the point where I would argue that it is not justified to punish the majority of trans people because of the small chance that one would be a sexual predator, especially considering that excluding them from the restroom would do near nothing to prevent the assault.
You say hijacked, but if the majority of the populace cannot make up their mind on what the term means, I'd say it is not properly defined.
--
I believe the argument about intersex is to prove that there is, in fact, the possibility for more than two genders, even using the "Sex Assigned At Birth == Gender" definition. It is being used to show that even using a purely scientific definition (which to many, is wrong), the two-gender mindset isn't accurate.
It's both. The idea of what a gender should act or look like is based on how society sees that gender. But the actual decision of which gender the individual wishes to express themselves as is up to them.
The dictionary definition of woman has no mention of a vagina or female sexual reproductive organs. So no, having a vagina does not make you a woman. Choosing to comport and express yourself as a woman is what makes you a woman. You could argue that Sex Assigned At Birth is what makes you a woman, but a large amount of people would disagree with you on that, so why hold so tightly to opinion that does nothing but offend, hurt, and de-validate others? There is no scientific proof as to how you have to interpret the word "woman", so it is a matter of opinion.
I'd argue that everyone's gentics are a little bit different, and when chemical drugs that change biological features, the ambiguity grows even more.
--
Yes, but does this not also refute your own point? The current scientific and psychological community very much disagrees on the subject of what defines gender, so quoting what some scientists say, or taking an expert's word at law to try and prove that Sex == Gender, or that Male == Violent, is Appeal to Authority.
You say this like you have not been doing the same thing this whole argument. You have been cherry-picking sources, just as you have been claiming the same views as various experts on the subject, despite the issue still being unresolved. Cherry-picking sources is fine, that's how evidence works, but why is it ok for you to do but not others?
Why is it certain? I think that while genitalia certainly influence biological factors, and people tend to stick with the gender associated with those genitalia, the biological traits associated with the "two sexes" greatly vary between individuals with the same genitals. There are naturally submissive people who were assigned male at birth, and naturally dominant people who were assigned female at birth. While the sex you are born as has a big impact on what traits you have, it certainly is a spectrum of traits, and the spectrum for assigned male at birth and assigned female at birth overlap quite a bit.
Because there are only two sexes. Male and female
But this is a discussion on gender, not sexes. Also, still wrong, as the very rare intersex case shows that there is more than two sexes, in any case.
This is terrible misogyny. Also, utter nonsense.
The idea that biological sex is not a meaningful concept or ambiguous in any way is complete boneheaded nonsense. The existence of rare cases of a person having both XX and XY cells does not change this.
"Be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brain rolls out." -- anonymous
How is it misogyny, and how is it nonsense?
I never said that biological sex was ambiguous, just that Men aren't definitively always more violent than Women.
Also, of course it's a meaningful concept, I'm just arguing that it doesn't define gender
That's not an anonymous quote actually, it was said by Walter Kotschnig (Sorry I know this is really petty but I'm having fun ;3)
Eradicating the biological and social aspects that are unique to females. Total misogyny. Some airy fairy statement about comportment is flakey nonsense. I assume you are on a wind up.
“Maybe you should. You missed off the 500 cases comment. You think sex is a spectrum?
Again, I fear you are confusing sex assigned at birth with gender. I believe that the two are different, if you do not share that opinion, then I fear you are claiming that over 50% of feminists are misogynistic, since most 3rd and 4th wave feminists support trans rights and inclusion.
Here's the definition of assault... applies to the legal definition too, btw:
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
as·sault
/??sôlt/
verb
make a physical attack on.
"Similarly, intrusion does not require immediate presence. In essence your view is that the women and their concerns fall and yield to the intruder. " --
So what is intrusion in the women's restroom if not for immediate presence? And to the second part, I'm confused, is the concern not about sexual assault in the restroom?
I don't think that's what he's saying, but if he is, he is just as entitled to hold that belief as you are entitled to hold yours.
Quoting Harry Hindu No. . . you can use biological classification schemes. . . and sometimes you don't. That is why most legal and public policy can be sex independent, race independent, etc.
Is there a law you can link to me that showcases asymmetry in how the law deals with male offenders versus female offenders? Even though the statistics are in fact asymmetric?
There may be a social angle to this as it seems they do. All though I'm betting its not related to lawful language.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Here is a quote from the last discussion. . . .
You literally are talking above if you remember your comments from six years ago about gender being a social construct and worried about it changing (culture revolution) by arbitrary dictate. That is a form of anti-realism, social constructivism about gender. The revolution can come at any time and sweep all your identities away like some big storm.
Your example of an extreme viewpoint extends to any non-extreme viewpoint if they even have a semblance of something that is socially created or 'personally made up'. So you could make the same argument to the point that the only thing that will suit you is if it was all biologically founded deterministically. So just some form of biological essentialism. However, well. . . I pointed out in minor sense why this still leads to the same debates, discussions, clarifications on legal language, or public policy in certain cases. Which biological aspects do we focus on if none at all? Is it meant to be present directly in written legal language?
Quoting Harry Hindu Are their social and feeling aspects to how as well as why one presents themselves, yes. End of discussion. Unless you want to argue some peculiar and strange claim that we've used nothing from our biology, personal biases, or social cues to influence how we present ourselves.
So now we can ask, of all these biologically related features, which are we supposed to use in public policy to single out groups for policy actions to be taken against them, what biological classification should be put into law to under guide how these offenders are dwelt with or what proceedings, etc. Are we to create laws specifically for female offenders and male offenders separately?
Quoting Harry Hindu I literally wrote it in the comment why this is pointless but I guess you take it as a definition that we have biological features which are more easily changed and those which aren't.
We are still left clarifying exactly what those features lead to from a behavioral standpoint, what they imply for gender/sex roles, what that means for legal standpoints as to whether we become Gattaca and start listing genomes in law proceedings, etc.
@Wolfy48 Has a snide remark about the fact that racial statistics are also in general rather asymmetric. You could even point to historical, social, and biological reasons for why this is. In what SPECIFIC manner is this supposed to influence public policy and legal language if anything at all?
Quoting Malcolm Parry Which social aspects? Could you get rather specific on which ones are UNIQUE to females?
I can only assume they are biologically essential to females as you said they are UNIQUE.
You know what, let's just all pretend we are all biological essentialists/determinists. Everything is biologically set in stone the second your conceived or at least it arises as such in general. It's similar to pragmatic discussions surrounding whether a determinist lives life any differently than a libertarian free will advocate.
Then have the discussion continue from there. Does this imply anything different from how we treat other people, how public policy treats them differently, whether certain stereotypes are here to stay or not, lawful language, difference in lawful enactments/application, behavioral absolutism, self-policing on gender roles, etc? Can we justify it without reference to those biological features but rather mere statistical utilitarian arguments in a moral sense?
As is the case with @tim wood the attempts used to mitigate against sexual assaults' have all been based in utilitarian gambits. They are intentionally supposed to weigh another's pain/suffering statistically against another then make legal dictates or public policy as related to that. Such gambits are not meant to deal with the pain and suffering of both of those groups at the same time and other strategies are required.
As for the challenge, it is case by case, as several references on that page attest. Particularly [7], [8], and [9].
Another telling line, which could apply to definitions I am not using: "There have been no reported cases of both gonads being functional in the same person, the functional tissue is usually the ovarian tissue.[10]"
If they have active SRY, they are male. IN a female, there is no SRY active in/on any cells. That some cells do not express this in males is a genetic aberration occurring during differentiation. This is spelled out clearly on Wiki page, and is what I have repeated perhaps eight or nine times now. I cannot see this as more than you ignoring the point, if you continually bring up the same point which has been addressed several times. No offense meant, but I will ignore this same argument going forward. If you disagree with my responses, that's fine - but you're arguing as if I haven't put a nice lid on it, from my side of things. We may simply want to use different benchmarks to define "male" and "female" - the issue for me, is your use is ambiguous, unhelpful and essentially useless. As I'd like to use them, they are definite and always applicable.
Quoting Wolfy48
I have provided full statistics and a discussion on them earlier in this thread. You can look back if you want to. Perhaps have a look at previous pages before jumping in like this :) It is also good practice to do a bit more of a look that at the things you already take to be the case.
Quoting Wolfy48
If you could point out where this was even vague intimated, that would be helpful. But misreadings of this kind will not be addressed for very long. To be incredibly clear: I am 100% a "not all men" person. But it is, almost always, males. That's the point - not that all males are abusers. Try not to take it personally.
I said males harm females. They do. It is the overwhelming direction of harm among humans. The only comparable set is females-> children and it pales in that comparison.
Quoting Wolfy48/
No, they are (and have always been) for females. The change occurred when 'woman' no longer referred exclusively to females. That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it.
Quoting Wolfy48
Speculative bollocks. Plenty of examples of trans people assaulting women in bathrooms (i've provided plenty in the thread, and I've not done anything close to an exhaustive look at that issue - just enough to understand it is an issue). But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males. This has nothing to do with 'risk'. It is their right. It has been since civilised society has been self-reflective in any real way. Rape crisis shelters are another extremely good example. Things like this prove there is an issue. This is sexual assault. Willing to throw even a single female under the bus for the feelings of males who are (in at least some sense disconnected from reality is not something I would morally entertain, personally. Given we have evidence of far more than one female suffering in this way, I'm good.
Quoting Wolfy48 Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find htose other articles, so I apologise for that.
Quoting Wolfy48 argument is understood, but is wrong. Having a penis isn't hte benchmark. And it is totally reasonable to take genetic markers as indicative of typical behaviour. We do this for all animals. It gets overdone, for sure, and eventually is plain bigotry so point is taken, nonetheless.
Quoting Wolfy48
This is, sorry to say, complete nonsense. What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.
Absolute nonsense.
Quoting Wolfy48
But that is factually wrong. This has been gone over. If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about. That's part of the problem - it is not theoretically ambiguous at all.
Quoting substantivalism
Truly don't know what you're saying here. If you could remove the metaphor I'd appreciate it.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread.
Quoting substantivalism
An awkward question. It didn't seem to until about 10 years ago, no. It does seem to now - but that's because people are denying it.
ok bro I'm not sure what you're yapping about. The legal definition of assault is to physically attack or threats that cause the victim to reasonably fear that they in danger of imminent assault and bodily harm. Aka about to be physically harmed. What definition of asault are you using?
--
I fully agree! While it is true that you are (typically) born one sex or the other, that does not determine what society has to think or what someone has to express themselves as in the future.
I have read through your source, and no where does it say that trans women are 4 times more likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man.
I'm not oppressing you Stan. You don't have a womb.
You can look at the discussion given. And it does - you may want to actually look at the statistics. Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women.
And yet you use the fact that men are on average more likely to commit a sexual crime, even though it is a very small part of the population that does so, to justify how NO ONE born male can be trusted in a women's bathroom.
"That's fine, but the point stands in terms of sorting out why there's such a furor over it."
--
The general outrage over is that people who consider themselves to be women are not being allowed into the women's restroom, and when they ask why, they receive the answer: "Because you're not a real woman," which is hurtful to them and disregards their right of self-expression.
"This is sexual assault." --
Nowhere in that article is a claim made of sexual assault.
"But this also applies to changing rooms where females have the right to not be seen in the nick by males." --
I'd argue that EVERYONE has a right to not be seen naked by ANYONE. And if you do not wish for a certain group of people to see you naked, don't get naked in front of said group of people.
"Also provided earlier. Here you go. Note specifically the opening lines, and the references therein. You may need to find those other articles, so I apologise for that." --
This paper never mentions the numbers you quote, was done with a subject size of less than 50, and only used the faces of people who identify as the gender they were born as. Some drugs, such as testosterone and estrogen, change the shape and texture of the face, and the study says nothing about that. Not to mention, the study you provided specifically states that they only used isolated faces, and that cues such as dress, hairstyle, and makeup also are taken into account when identifying someone's gender.
"What are you comporting or expressing yourself as?
"a woman"
What is "a woman"?
Someone who chooses to comport and express themselves as a woman.
Absolute nonsense." --
As I have stated before, the exact definitions of the words "gender," "man," and "woman" are not very precise, and are left up to the interpretation of the individual. You are free to interpret the word "woman" as meaning whatever you would like, but there is no way to prove that your opinion is the better opinion.
"If you don't take a scientific definition of sex seriously, there's not a lot to talk about"
--
I do take the scientific definition of sex seriously, I just don't believe that Sex Assigned At Birth is the same as gender. Also, it is debated whether or not intersex is a separate sex from male and female, and the generally accepted answer is that yes, intersex is a completely different sex from male or female.
"They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread" --
This goes against most generally accepted science on the concept of the sexes, and ignores the proof that the person you are responding to lays down.
"Aside from the incorrect ambiguity in the opening, yes, 100%. But that doesn't say anything about policy. What 'society thinks' amounts to convention. Policy is a bit different, so best prize those apart."
--
Well, I still argue there is ambiguity, but I'm confused as to what you mean by policy. Who's policy?
"Compare them with control groups (the general population). 0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women." --
No, the study you quoted states that transwomen follow a similar trend as cis men for sexual violence (a bit less likely, actually), nowhere does it claim that transwomen are MORE likely to commit a sexual crime than a cis man. As for '0.04% of non-trans males in for sex crimes. 0.16% of trans women', can you provide a source for this information?
I’m not confusing it at all. I’m saying your grafting on some meaningless nonsense is just that.
No he isn’t and the earth isn’t flat either
So why do you continue to say that sex is scientifically the same as gender? It's not.
Well uhhhh... ok? I personally think that everyone is allowed to form their own opinions when science can't provide a clear answer...
No. This is an incredibly straw man.
I would add, though, that it is not as small-a-portion of the population as you seem to want it to be. That isn't the point. When it's always males, the prohibition is justified to reduce risk. We cannot, post-hoc, prevent harm.
I’m happy to stand corrected
And how does banning trans people from bathrooms accomplish preventing sexual assault?
Because gender describes the societal and cultural differences between the sexes. It doesn’t mean a man becomes a woman. This is now law in my country. The madness has been curtailed.
It has.
That's a valid opinion for you to have, but not one that everyone shares. I certainly don't think that the state should have the right to decide such matters of opinion for the people, but hey, not much I can do about it (yet)
Replace trans people with the word men.
--
Idk man, how would you even scientifically prove how to interpret a definition?
Ok so now trans women can go to the women's bathroom, works for me ;3
It is fact. It is (thankfully) law in UK.
I have no issue with trans people dressind and living however they like. However, women have fought for certain rights and I don’t think it is for men to barge into their exclusive spaces. It’s not a wild out there stance surely?
They were never barred.
Sex is binary. It isn’t a spectrum. It isn’t an opinion
And that's not a bad stance, except for all the people that have their identities violated by that interpretation.
The argument is on gender, not sex, and in any case, the majority of scientists state that there are more than two sexes... (though the others are uncommon)
No they fucking don't. There has never been a single sex other than male and female suggested. Even by activists.
Quoting Wolfy48
Quoting AmadeusD
It seems you cannot read. I'm out.
We can agree to disagree. I have stated sex is binary and I don’t ascribe to the definition of gender that has been co opted by you and many others who seem happy to allow men to cosplay as women.
I concur, there is no use arguing over whose opinion is scientifically correct, as neither can be 'correct'. I don't agree with your views, but their YOUR views, not mine.
It isn’t my responsibility to affirm someone’s wishes. I’m not going to play along especially if this violates female rights to exclusive areas.
Do you think scientific facts are opinions that you may or may not disagree with?
Enlighten me
--
Look, I know this is coming from a good place but that is the same excuse that people used to justify racial segregation in the States
No, facts are facts. But when a fact is undecided on, then it can't really be used in an argument, and facts have no bearing on interpretation and opinion. It is a decided fact that people can be born male or female. It is an undecided fact that they can be born something else, rarely. It is an opinion that sex and gender are not the same thing.
You think men should be able to use women’s bathrooms?
It isn’t.
Quite frankly, I think that bathrooms should just be individual locking rooms, like what you see at most restaurants. For me the issue isn't whether or not the people in the room have dicks, it's the fact that there's people in the room.
So if you don't call them trans-women, what do you call them?
Three reasons:
1. super loaded;
2. I've not said I don't/wouldn't;
3. I have said that in at least half of any given instances, it is socially incumbent to do so.
Politics didn't need to address this issue until the last five years or so. And it has been relatively clear that most bodies want "male" and "female" to be defined classes with a range of attributes that are biologically typical. So far, so simple.
Why might this matter? Sports, healthcare, legal protections incl. relationship imbalance, workplace harrassment, privacy laws, certain crimes are sex-specific and much else besides. Much of society is informed, fundamentally, by the sex engaging in a given activity. This is basis for most political theorizing around resource, power and social justice. Males and females are different. How do we account for, and equivocate that?
That is a clear answer. Have I missed something in the question?
Oh, I think I confused you with someone else. :grimace:
I just got through reading about a person called Dr Helen Joyce, a former mathematician/journalist who is now an anti-trans activist. She says "trans woman" doesn't make any sense, and I can see her point. But if you don't call them that, what do you call them?
Yeah, i get the point too but I'm unsure what else you could say besides "trans-identified male" which seems cumbersome, if not kind of a dick move.
What? For real?
Though, I have interacted with her plenty over the internet (well, prior to about June 2023) and she might recognise my profiles in that capacity but I doubt it.
She seems like a really cool person.
Conservatives make this a clear and ever present worry of there's. For a while now.
Quoting AmadeusD More so, if they are inherently unequal and distinct what exactly is meant to motivate us to have laws/policies/social policing that is intended to be neutral on those aspects?
I'm not entirely sure what the question is - what decrease are you talking about? In any case, 'roles' are not what policy aims to talk about. The 'roles' we play are identities and generally not subject to policy. The harms that might result tend to be. Which doesn't butter much bread for you, I can see, but it at least separates the two questions about "what's happening with identity and gender roles" and then what's going on with sex, and how this does not change.
Quoting substantivalism
.......please, PLEASE do not be this obtuse. The harm. The fucking HARM from the inequity.
Quoting AmadeusD They do have consequences. What you choose to do and not to do.
Quoting AmadeusD Ergo, in cases of extreme enough inter-group conflict we can and have fully separated out groups. Segregation practices and closed borders. The question is one of how much percentage in inter-group conflict are you willing to stomach before you go in and manually separate them out.
We've done it in select private spaces, in prisons, and even rather naturally in terms of communities that attract or are filled with a particular nationality/racial class/religion/etc. The follow up question is to what degree do we do this in a social context? Whether we enforce it vocally and explicitly?
The mere allotment of that proximity allows this. Literally allowing say, gender neutral bathrooms, is itself a boost to those statistics we are so worried about. In fact, getting rid of them would seem more amenable besides just adding new exclusive woman's spaces. The mere existence of them breeds that statistic as does this extend to any other context in terms of close proximity of select classes.
Quoting AmadeusD Have you seen the inequality in these statistics? On the Crime Data Explorer over the past five years we've had around apparently 85.77% of rapes committed by males alone. Those are merely the ones nationally reported.
Most of them a staggering 70% have committed this crime in a residence or home!
Your thread/questions are about policy.
Quoting substantivalism
Zero, if deaths or grievous harm are involved (or, more properly 1 - instance, per-cent, whatever you like. 1 is enough).
Quoting substantivalism
Plenty of groups do this. Can you clarify the question?
Quoting substantivalism
Fwiw, my solution is "neutral" and "female". Sounds like it's not far off something you'd be ok with?
Quoting substantivalism
This response makes my point with much more vigour than I put into it. Was that the intent?
Quoting AmadeusD Then sky is the limit then. We'd need to hit the ground running otherwise it will continue as it has been.
Quoting AmadeusD Then we should be fine to state it loud and proud no skirting around it. Agreed.
Quoting AmadeusD Yes, except as those statistics noted that isn't the only place this conflict resides. . . it's literally in our homes and residences. Many of these offenders and victims seemed to know each other even. Friends, family members, acquittances, etc.
Quoting AmadeusD Yes, partly, because I want out of people honesty as to what they are doing as well as further actions to be taken. Legality has been talked to death and nothing more can be added aside from adding life sentencing or flattening sentencing across the sex spectrum equally. Morality is a no go as you and me would both avoid any of these options if we could help it but like difficult decisions in a war context we cannot do so.
That leaves stronger segregation practices, exclusive spaces, and social outreach. The latter is what I've mentioned before having to be in analogy to sex education given in most public schools which attempt to rear the next generation in some form. That or social groups created to attempt to de-radicalize their neighbors. Here is a study that covers some of those approaches.
If all else failed and we still desired as always zero percentage attainment then what else is there to do than to strong hand the public itself. The more its left alone to its own devices the more such and such statistics remain as they were. Especially if we are waiting on the veracity or successfulness of specific social programs to get back to us.
Personally I wouldn't ever commit myself to such 'strong-handed' approaches but I can't say so for you, any other person on this forum, or the entire United States as well as those in office.
Sigh*
They are male or female. I have responded to Michael on this, harking back to plenty of further support I've given earlier in the thread.
— AmadeusD
I’m happy to stand corrected
But the ones that aren’t. Are you happy for men to use them?
From what I can glean here, I would say that those reasons can't be instantiated in law. They are social conditions. The entire point of policy is to be as neutral as possible. Whether you're in poverty or not, don't fucking kill people.
Quoting substantivalism
Not sure what you're getting at - but yeah, policies should do their best to reduce harm to zero as balanced against rights to Freedom (which is an entirely different discussion. These are just formal observations, not details).
Quoting substantivalism
I still, as I intimated by asking for clarification, don't know what you're getting at or whether this is sarcastic even.
Quoting substantivalism
There is no 'except' in that further comment. I agree, it's something that needs discussing (and is regularly discussed ad infinitum (good!)). But the policies around bathrooms and policies around in-home reduction of harm do not meet. The public sphere is a totally different beast, policy-wise and day-to-day interaction-wise (lmao... fuck that phrase).
I can't quite grasp the overall nature of hte rest of your post. I'll try make some comments..
Quoting substantivalism
Stronger than...? They have been strict across most of history. Only recently has that back-slid to a point we may need to implement more. It's the over-relaxing of those segregative policies that has caused the issues. Harm abounds - but those relaxations have increased as against "traditional" policy (notice that this doesn't touch the in-home abuse which is obviously rife. It's a different beast).
Quoting substantivalism
That doesn't seem true, but I have not a lot else to add.
Quoting substantivalism
Let me in on a couple-a things:
1. What, in your own words, is the exact problem that is in question?; and
2. What, in your own words, is the exact solution to it? (this one i realise probably wont be exact - I just want to avoid prevarication).
I was interested in the syndrome did a bit of googling and the conclusion was that some people were a bit of both. It was a syndrome with 500 known cases. I was corrected by a poster and was happy to be corrected because tiny pockets of developmental defects doesn’t seem change the science of 8 billion people on the planet.
Why is the change for the worse?
Men who think they are women. It’s a bit long winded though.
I stated that I was happy to be corrected. I should not have gone down the intersex cul de sac which some are fixated on to give credence to their delusional misogyny.
Let's not.
See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development
Under your account, both of these people are biologically male?
Also of interest is Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father
Although there have been no documented cases of self fertilization, it is not prima facie biologically impossible.
Quoting AmadeusD
I understand that you believe that a human is a biological male if and only if they have at least one cell with an active SRY gene (and female otherwise), and that having an active SRY gene is a binary trait with no ambiguity or degree.
And I am pointing out that this is a flawed understanding of both human biology and the English adjectives "male" and "female".
I think he's pointing out that you started by claiming that every human is either unambiguously male or unambiguously female without exception, then you accepted that at least 500 people are an exception, but then later went back to claiming that there are no exceptions.
I was corrected by AmadeusD.
Even if there are 500 anomalies that is exactly what they are. No spectrum
Then I’ll ask the question I asked before:
Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.
Some people have both XX and XY. Are they male or female?
Some people have XX male syndrome. Are they male or female?
Some people have XYY, some XXY, some XXXY, some XXXXY. Are they male or female?
Wrong.
I am the one not cherry-picking resources. Noticed how pointed out one of the statements in what I quoted as supporting his argument because I'm not hiding anything. He is the one that took that one statement out of context and continues to do so. I acknowledged that there are instances where it would not be a fallacy to accept what an authority has said. It is you and Michael that refuse to acknowledge that there are instances where appealing to authority is a fallacy. That is the difference.
Quoting Wolfy48
Wrong.
It means the topic is still debatable. You assume the issue is resolved because it aligns with what your political party is telling you and you don't question what your political party tells you.
Quoting Wolfy48
Wrong again.
A large amount of women would disagree that acting like a Kardashian isn't what it means to be a woman and is actually sexist to think that. Gender-based stereotypes are sexist. You are condoning sexism. You are the one offending people.
Quoting Wolfy48
Wrong.
The social construction isn't what society expects a gender to act or look like. It is was society expects a sex to act like. Wearing a dress is not what it means to be a woman any more than wearing parachute pants is what it means to be Michael Jackson.
Besides, isn't wearing clothes and acting like people from another culture considered culture appropriation, or racial appropriation? Why isn't a man wearing a dress considered sexual appropriation?
I don't know why it's important to work that out. It remains true that a biological male has XY AND no-XX. A biological female has XY AND no-XY. Simple.
Because there are people who do not fit within this binary classification.
Therefore either a) these people are neither biologically male nor biologically female or b) your attempt at defining what it means to be a biological male and a biological female is wrong.
But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers on a hand, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers on a hand and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? You don't necessarily need all the traits (even though a vast majority do have all the traits). You just need a majority of the traits.
I'm responding to @frank's claim that someone is biologically male if and only if they (only) have an XY karyotype and biologically female if and only if they (only) have an XX karyotype.
He's the one trying to define "biologically male" and "biologically female" according to a singular trait, not me.
I would say a. I'm thinking of it from a healthcare provider's point of view. Biological male = XY, but not XX. Biological female = XX, but not XY.
All other cases would be handled on individual bases. It's not important to categorize those people as male or female. It's just important to know how their genetic makeup impacts the course of their care.
It's nice to see we agree.
Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD are claiming that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.
My question to them (and to which you respond) was an attempt to have them try to understand that human biology is not so black and white.
I think your question was an attempt to undermine the concept of biological sex. That's a non-starter.
No, I am trying to explain to them that it is not the case that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.
There are real people who really exist who do not fit within such a neat and tidy dichotomy.
You are inconsistent, so I'll repeat myself:
But then why are people born with less than 10 fingers on a hand, or born without legs still considered human? Isn't being human more than just having 10 fingers on a hand and two legs? Aren't there multiple traits that make one a human, and not just one? Wouldn't this mean that if you have a majority of those traits you're considered a human? Why would that not be the same for sex? You don't necessarily need all the traits (even though a vast majority do have all the traits). You just need a majority of the traits.
Is there ambiguity in being a human?
Good. So you admit that biological sex is a very important and meaningful distinction. :up:
Even sex-discordant chimeras can have a normal male or female phenotype. Only 28 of the 50 individuals with a 46,XX/46,XY karyotype were either true hermaphrodites or had ambiguous genitalia.
That is total number of cases of this disorder that are known. I would say 28 out of say 12 billion. is not statistically significant number to overhaul the binary nature of sex.
But ambiguous does not mean a third sex, surely?
Do you mean to ask if one can be ambiguously human?
Because to answer your literal question, I would say that I am unambiguously human.
I rephrased the question:
Quoting Harry Hindu
28 out of 12 billion seems fairly black and white.
Just one counterexample is sufficient to disprove your claim that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.
The point is that it isn't an counterexample if we go by the definition that being anything means having a majority of the traits for that thing.
Yes, if by "human" you mean "homo sapiens".
Homo sapiens evolved from homo antecessor, but there was never some single generation where someone who was unambiguously homo antecessor gave birth to someone who was unambiguously homo sapiens.
It was a gradual development from one to the other, with generations of ambiguity inbetween.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The particular question I asked was:
Given that some human has ovotesticular syndrome caused by 46,XX/46,XY chimerism, what is the biological feature that either makes them a male or makes them a female? Of particular relevance are those with bilateral ovotestis and/or streak gonads, as well as ambiguous genitalia.
In this case even your "having a majority of the traits" doesn't work, because they have both sets of karyotypes, both sets of gonadal tissue, and genitalia that is neither clearly male nor clearly female.
It's a very very narrow spectrum. 5,999,999,984 female, 28 ambiguous, 5,999,999,984 male
There is a critical distinction here.
We should not ignore the fact that even the smaller percent of intersex people that can have children have the same 99.9% chance of producing males and females vs the 0.1% of another intersex person. Intersex is not a trait that is passed down to the next generation like the traits that natural selection promotes for evolving into a new species.
See Report of Fertility in a Woman with a Predominantly 46,XY Karyotype in a Family with Multiple Disorders of Sexual Development:
Quoting Harry Hindu
?
But why are we discussing sex when gender and sex are separate? Isn't this off-topic?
Because some, like Malcolm Parry and AmadeusD, claimed that every single human without exception is either (unambiguously) biologically male or (unambiguously) biologically female.
I was simply responding to this to correct them. Human biology isn't as simple as they think it to be.
Because it's somewhat relevant.
If someone claims that men's bathrooms are only for people who are biologically male and women's bathrooms are only for people who are biologically female then we must ask which bathrooms any intersex person should use. Or are they not allowed to use public bathrooms (or compete in sports, or go to prison, etc.)?
But that's the thing. Why have a discussion about bathrooms, sports, and prisons if sex and gender are separate things and bathrooms are divided by sex, not gender?
I just addressed that. If bathrooms are divided by sex then what do we do about intersex people? Are they not allowed to use public bathrooms?
You didn't. You keep bringing up intersex. What does that have to do with gender?
Yes, because people like you are claiming that only biological men should use the men's bathrooms and only biological women should use the women's bathrooms. You are the one saying that bathrooms should be divided by biological sex, so I want to know what you think we should do about people who are biologically intersex. Are they allowed to use public bathrooms? Which bathroom should they use?
Right, but if sex and gender are separate, then why isn't your rebuttal that we are off-topic rather than assume the premise that sex and gender are the same which is where the bathroom, sports and prisons issues are rooted?
The moment anyone brings up bathrooms, sports an prisons, you should tell them they are off-topic. But your responses seem to imply that you are assuming their premise that sex and gender are one and the same.
Because it's not off topic.
It's a simple question, so I don't understand why you won't answer. Which bathroom should intersex people use?
Intersex people can use whichever bathroom they want. What does this have to do with trans-people? A vast majority of trans-people are not intersex.
If it's not off-topic then sex and gender are one and the same.
So why is it acceptable for intersex people to use whichever bathroom they want but not trans people? In allowing intersex people in men's bathrooms and intersex people in women's bathrooms you've already accepted that men's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological males and women's bathrooms not exclusively for biological females.
Because sex and gender are separate. So you're comparing apples and oranges, right?
The men's bathroom is exclusively for men and intersex people. Women's bathrooms are for women and intersex people. I'm not sure how trans-people, which have nothing to do with sex, fits in here.
I thought you disagreed with this view?
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm pointing out the inconsistency in your view. If intersex people are allowed to use women's bathrooms then women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females, and if women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females then why can't trans women use them?
I'm playing along with your assertion that sex and gender are separate and showing your inconsistency in constantly going on about sex in a thread about gender.
Why?
Why not: the men's bathroom is exclusively for any biological man who identifies as a man, biological woman who identifies as a man, or intersex person who identifies as man and the women's bathroom is exclusively for any biological woman who identifies as a woman, biological man who identifies as a woman, or intersex person who identifies as a woman?
I think the point trans activists were making was that gender and biological sex are not necessarily the same the thing. There's no reason we couldn't separate them. I think that's true, but there are no signs that the majority of the population is going to separate them. There's no amount of activism that can force them to do so.
Also, gender affirming care should absolutely not be provided to people below the age of 18. It should be made very clear to everyone that undergoing medical transition causes permanent infertility, and trans-women who undergo that kind of transition will never have another orgasm.
You're not answering my question. Why do you group trans-people with people defined by their sex if sex and gender are separate things? You are making a category mistake.
How are they not the same thing? What is the relationship between the two?
I'm addressing the relevant issue.
You say that an intersex person can use whichever bathroom they are most comfortable using. So why not allow a non-intersex person to use whichever bathroom they are most comfortable using?
And presumably you understand what it means for an intersex person to identify as male or identify as female (despite knowing that they are intersex). So why can't you understand this same thing happening for some of those who are not intersex?
Trans activists wanted to say that gender is about roles people play in society. A biological male can dress and behave in a typically feminine way. Therefore, people can transition if they want to.
Is that not clear to you?
What I'm saying is that if gender and sex are not the same thing, the discussing intersex is off-topic.
If women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females, and vice versa for males, AND gender and sex are not the same, then your argument would allow animals (as species is separate from sex) to use the public restroom.
Those roles are sexist, gender-based stereotypes. Is that not clear to you?
It's not off topic. It is perfectly consistent to accept both of these:
1. Gender and sex are distinct
2. Bathrooms ought be separated by sex, not gender
The problem, however, is that intersex people exist, and so how do we maintain (2)? To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Jesus, this is absurd. You sound like Mike Johnson:
That is something more people are realizing. It's ok to be a butch woman. It's ok to be a feminine guy. What activists were doing in both the US and the UK was putting every child who explored gender onto a path toward transition. Next, a "social contagion" appeared in the form of internet social media. Suddenly thousands of young people, particularly adolescent girls, were saying they might be trans, and the activists basically engineered a disaster. The trans activists fucked up.
The backlash is forming.
Exactly. 1 and 2 establish that it would be off-topic to discuss bathrooms in a discussion about gender. You're making my argument for me.
Quoting Michael
Again, what does intersex have to do with gender?
Quoting Michael
This isn't anything like what I am saying. You are the one claiming that women's bathrooms are not exclusively for biological females. I'm asking how that does not prevent anything from using the public restroom. You seem fine with stopping with trans-people, but why if sex and gender are separate? I pointed this out already but you would rather play the intellectual dishonesty game.
This is a point I made 6 years ago. Nice to see you're finally catching up.
You're a genius Harry. Sorry we ever doubted you.
:smile:
No, because many disagree with (2). They will claim that bathrooms ought be separated by gender, not sex.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I explained it quite clearly. To say that trans women can't use women's bathrooms because they're not biologically female but that intersex people can use women's bathrooms even though they're not biologically female is special pleading.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The same thing that already prevents them (or doesn’t, in those cases where a stray cat or bird enters a bathroom).
You’re not making any sense.
We could say that everybody who has an identified biological sex goes to the restroom that aligns with that. People who don't have a biological sex go wherever they want. It's not a logical problem, not that human life is usually governed by logic.
We can say anything we like, but what's the justification behind this decision? If it's acceptable for someone who is intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom then why isn't it acceptable for someone who isn't intersex to identify a woman and use the women's bathroom?
In a democracy, it just comes down to what the community wants. You can argue against the prevailing view, but I would pick something more persuasive than what about intersex people?
What concerns me more is the safety of any LGBTQ person using the men's restroom. And that comes from working in the emergency room and seeing what crazy men do to people like that.
There's a limit to what the police can do to protect people. To some extent everyone needs to be thinking about what they need to do to keep themselves safe. It's just the way it is.
If someone’s opinion on who should use which bathroom stems from a flawed understanding of biology then being educated on the existence of intersex people is relevant, and if they can understand what it means for an intersex person to nonetheless identify as being male or as female then perhaps they can better understand transgender men and women. Maybe then they will reconsider their opinion on who can use which bathroom (as well other issues related to transgender people).
Maybe so. You can definitely work on raising awareness of that issue.
Quoting AmadeusD Balanced. . . or weighed as we could in matter of fact have stripped populations as well as people of certain rights when conditions have been met which require stricter ruling on it. A quick cursory look over when this has occurred can concern everything from constitutional rights, civil rights, or even procedural rights.
Quoting AmadeusD As well as a dramatic increase in personal freedoms which we've hoped in a rather short period of time, or at least a generation or two, that this would equilibrate. In certain cases it has not and those issues persist in other fashions.
Quoting AmadeusD If you leave it in the state it already is in then it's a fairly short conclusion that the statistics might remain the same. Even if they do eventually decrease by just letting it be we have to weigh that time allotted for it to even out against the harm that resulted in that allotted time or could potentially have.
Quoting AmadeusD That legal and certain forms of public policy may not be approachable when it comes to settling certain class conflicts. Especially since we live a democratic nation therefore there is no universal ruling that is bound to happen as rather we'd probably have various states differ on to what degree they meet the requirements we desire. Inevitably, continue to have in some fashion the same compounding issues because there is no rigid line drawn.
Abortion is classic example of this as only a handful of states outright ban it or put no limits on it while the majority of the rest differ on gestational minutia.
Quoting AmadeusD Roll backs, general government mandated population educational programs and awareness, or grassroots movements in general.
If we have advocated for diversity training and inclusion in businesses or government positions then we can obviously roll back on that if not actually advocate forms of exclusivity if that helps our cause. There is nothing stopping us from rolling back on it and I'm not talking about merely removing those programs but replacing them.
Another would be to have a government hand in properly rearing the public through mandated public educational programs. The current office has done so for sex education in certain areas so they can clearly influence what is to be added in or removed from that curriculum. Ergo, if there is something that you felt to be missing from these curriculum then it could be forced into including just that.
Aside from businesses which attempt to have this sort of initial educational curriculum when entering a job for the first timeI don't really know of any particular social outreach that is intended for older adults. As if the legal system is supposed to be their teaching tool alone which is a rather poor teacher.
This is sort of also where grassroots movements can take hold if you don't want the government hand in any of this then the public has to do this all on their own. State by state; community by community. This is difficult because part of the reason we have many of the issues do stem from the faulty ability of our current nation to fully support any or all possible family's in terms of community or economic stability. There's only so much that one can provide in terms of social welfare programs while missing out on community involvement or self-policing. This is a popular talking point about both sides which is the death of communities in general which have felt splintered with no real public space to call their own.
You could name a majority of faults for this:
- Decline of the 'nuclear family'.
- Economic increases and a lack of equal monetary gains to support family's.
- Lack of communities and an over emphasis on wide sprawling car centered landscapes that our cities our centered around.
- Lack of connective guiding identity. You could call this the specter of 'secularism'.
These are some of the things I've seen conservatives and liberals alike complain about as part of why we are in the state that we are in. Of course, we could just hyper-focus on exclusivity projects as that is rather simple and easy to do. In hind sight, enough literal space and separation can suit us in a variety of these situations. Everything from removing simple mixed sex spaces to literally enforcing it upon businesses that they split up their offices this way if it isn't already and everything in-between.
The fact that people are becoming more nationalistic means they are scrambling for an identity to call their own with which to guide themselves as well as their communities. Conservatives seem to favor or at least imply theocratic approaches to particular religious denominations and I can't say I know of an immediate solution to counter that which isn't just asking the public to lean into their political identities. Which is also the reason we are in the hell we are in right now any way. Though, there has been a growing non-secular spiritual trend of Americans who have split off away from popular religious identities.
That's fine. I have some sympathy with your position when we're dealing with transgender issues. But the same arguments have been used for dealing with sexual orientation and race issues. At times, and sometimes still, most bodies want gay and black people to be classified as biologically, or at least socially or morally, atypical not to mention inferior. It's a bad argument in terms of what's right and wrong, but it's right politically - don't try to ram your values down your fellow citizen's throats. There are years of patient groundwork that has to accomplished first if you want to succeed in those kinds of social changes.
Maybe its the almost arbitrariness with which is applied in one rather specific social cases but not really in many if any others. Usually its bolstered by utilitarian arguments to the form of weighing the statistical harm caused to one compared to another. Obviously, this arises rather frequently so shouldn't we make this line of justification common among all those other situations as well?
However, there are other possibilities besides an immediate utilitarian benefit which could imply momentary harm/inequality for long term benefits. Some of these social concerns went through rather heavy troubling times before enough of a social change forced a point of view to stick and these class conflicts rapidly decreased. In the short term, though, there would have been a plethora of class conflicts if not more because we allowed extensive freedom for either side to express themselves as well as be in close proximity.
There is a more. . . taxing. . . form of counterfactual utilitarianism which is more muddled. The only example I can think of is that of those argue for a form of white replacement theory. These individuals, bigoted as they are, are worried about some possible but not current overhauling of the demographics of our nation which would trickle down into who more easily obtains political power or who holds greater social strength to dictate the culture they want. They would argue this would be a net harm to the nation overall so while its not overall present now (they would disagree on this point but I'll put that aside) we should pay mind to how open we are to other cultures given this potential danger.
So are we supposed to prefer always immediate utilitarian concerns or delayed ones with greater reach? What about counterfactual ones not necessarily concerning criminal harm alone?
The reasons given so far are peripheral.
I guess the "other folk" think they can make whatever laws they like, and up to a point, they can. In the US, the SCOTUS said the right of trans people to use the loo that aligns with their gender is protected by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Someone might question that in the future, but right now, local governments can't do what the UK did.
Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of other people's business, don't you think?
Definitely simpler.
Cost a lot less?
Taken up less time?
Been less of an embuggerance?
Doesn't it seem odd to you that in "our" culture, issues of manners are taken to the highest court?
Why this lavish interest in the contents of other people's underwear?
Apparently it came up in the UK due to Scottish women not wanting trans-women in their loos. This led to the UK government declaring that "woman" refers to biology. This whole issue goes back to the 1950s when John Money, who had little in the way of mental health, declared that gender and biological sex are not the same thing. The UK just said: yes they are.
Same question: puzzling that other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all.
I blame urinals. They are the reason the cue is so much shorter for the men's, but one needs the appropriate equipment to use them.
Ban urinals, I say! More space for cubicles, no need to differentiate rooms on the basis of the contents of folk's underpants.
And teach people not to leer.
:lol:
We don't have real evidence of trans people causing problems for anyone in bathrooms, to my knowledge? We do have lots of evidence of self-identified trans people causing severe problems in change rooms and prisons. Happy to provide sources, which seem lacking in this debate.
You guys know about the Cass report? How the 'gold standard' affirmative model has been subsequently rejected by the initial proponents of affirmation? How the demographics have shifted substantially, from roughly two thirds of trans children being boys to the current reversal, in which females are suddenly more likely to be trans? How this is unprecedented throughout human history?
Serious lack of actual facts in the philosophical debate here. Both are essential.
And of course the premise that hormone therapy levels the sporting playing field is just dumb. The source on this is the IOC. Anyone here trust the IOC? No? Good.
It feels to me as if epistemic arguments here sort of miss the point, or at least, fail to come up with answers timely enough to matter.
Some history.
In short, the affirmative model became the gold standard for treating young people with severe gender dysphoria in the 90s. These were highly self-selected young people who were adamant about their dysphoria, and demonstrated this throughout their childhood.
Four out of five gender questioning children will ultimately accept their 'assigned' gender, the majority being gay.
The 'gender affirmation' model worked for people considered 'trans' historically. For all of recorded human history, across cultures, trans people have existed. Anthropology is great for issues like this.
But, all of a sudden, trans people are suddenly completely different than they have ever been, historically, culturally?
So many people writing courageously on this right now.
You guys know that people like Jesse Signal get attacked for simple reporting, right? You know who Signal is, right?
Here's a lesser known critic of the subject with some smoking insights.
https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/embodiment-goals
Philosophical arguments for a trans affirmative stance are interesting, conceptually.
But practically? If you care about trans people, and gender-questioning kids, affirmation-by-default is objectively more harmful than helpful.
The premise that every person who asserts some sort of gender-questioning identity is trans is stupid, and, if I might say this as a lay-philosopher newly on TPF, contrary to the philosophical project.
Detransitioners are real, and sooner or later, they are going to start suing, and winning huge sums, from doctors with a default woke stance.
Yes! Poor locker room design is the issue. Why do we have locker rooms that force us to differentiate on the basis of our genitalia? If the issue is modesty, why not have individual cubicles?
What I posted was a specific response to what I see as the flaws in @AmadeusD's comment on gender identity issues. I don't see the relevance of what you've written to that.
If a series of concepts suits the better intellectual benefit of the many then why not adopt them and dictate it as such as its already been done in legal language as regards sex?
Philosophically I don’t think anyone can jump the gap of their sex and become the opposite gender or non gender. The sex of a person is there for everyone to see unless there is significant surgery and synthetic hormones used.
I have no issue with someone adopting the stereotypical norms of the opposite gender but that is cosplaying and does not reflect the reality that men and women can be whoever they like to be.
If there were no imbalance physically and socially between the sexes then there would be no need for any restrictions on men being allowed in women’s spaces.
However, there is an imbalance so restrictions are necessary until through massive social engineering these imbalances are eliminated.
The trans rights advocates seem to ignore or not see issues that women face despite the many many advances that have been made both legally and socially over the decades.
I assume even the most radical trans advocate has acknowledged that female sports is not a place for trans women.
I have no idea why the subject is seen as complicated. It isn’t.
I can't be bothered talking about it any more for now. It was a fun chat.
Not quite. The ruling is that, “the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex.”
It’s specifically in reference to this section:
The court notes that there is already a section that protects gender reassignment, and so it would be redundant (as well as out of context) to take the words “man” and “woman” in section (a) and “sex” in section (b) to also refer to gender identity.
There is a fundamental difference between trans and other issues.
A Black person is black, a homosexual is homosexual, A trans woman is not a woman.
Thanks.
:up:
My wife is at least as white as she is black, but she is clearly black. such are the mysteries of race-mixing. Our daughters are only slightly black, but are still black. And fuck your attempt to clarify reality for us all.
That isn't very nice. My point is there is a huge difference between discriminating against Black people, homosexuals versus trans people. The two aren't equivalent at all. However, people seem to make snide insinuations to racism and homophobia.
I am aware Black people and white people are not monochrome.
Your racial absolutism wasn't very nice. And I didn't even mention black albinos, or non-negro blacks of Papua and Australia, or ...
And discrimination is discrimination, ha ha.
I’m not sure you are the full shilling.
I’ll leave it there.
Good idea, your flames are no substitute for an argument.
I prefer discussion but it appears to be beyond you. Which is fine.
You prefer pontification; but only your own. I thought you were going to leave back there?
I’ll decide thanks.
Sorry, but I still don’t see how this is relevant to what I said. I was just pointing out to @AmadeusD the possible consequences of his way of seeing things.
You’re missing the point of my post to Amadeus D. Whether or not he, or you, think a trans woman is a woman, it doesn’t change the fact his argument has been used to deny basic rights to black and gay people.
I’m not here to argue about transgender issues. I am pointing out the consequences of his argument. Please, no more misrepresentations of what I wrote.
A question - is it still snide if it’s true?
That is not only a social fact, during slavery it was a legal fact too.
Quoting T Clark
In some ignorant benighted countries certainly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws
Thus the law was used to try and maintain the absolute separation of the races. The law creates the facts, and my family would have been illegal and therefore not a family. And I'm the one who's not nice, if not actually insane? Is there a polite way to call out bigotry?
I see your point and mis interpreted what your thrust was. Slavery was fine in Ancient Greece and it was fine until it wasn’t. I agree.
Of course not.
After I posted I edited the post to say
Quoting T Clark
I meant to refer to the US in particular.
It’s a discussion and sometimes people misinterpret what someone has wrote. My post has been misinterpreted and misrepresented but I care not. I’m not here to try and persuade someone that they got the wrong end of the stick.
I actually don't understand how biological absolutism has anything to do with the struggles of blacks and gays. How is it even vaguely related?
I have no idea. Ask the posters
I guess that makes two of us. :grin:
The way this is related to women's rights has to do with a Scottish law that required a certain number of women on local councils. This law was supposed to protect women's right to a voice. At first any self proclaimed woman could get on the council to meet the requirement. But then they started requiring paperwork, which could be a birth certificate. I'm guessing this improved the situation, but since a biological man can have the sex on his birth certificate changed, the women were still upset.
This started events in motion which had the UK Supreme Court declare that the requirement has to be met by biological women.
Can't a man, living as a woman, represent the voice of women? Why not?
I was a junior in high school in a town in southern Virginia in 1967 when the most appropriately named case in legal history was decided - Loving vs the Commonwealth of Virginia.
We could set aside all the social stuff and still have your actual biology, your feelings about that biology (are you comfortable with it or do you wish it was different and if so how), and what biologies you’re attracted to in others: your sex, your sexual bearing (my new concept), and your sexual orientation.
Then separate from that, there’s your social status, how you are categorized by society in terms abstracted from that biological sex. In the OP, I left that as just one thing on its own (“gender”), separate from the new thing I introduced to distinguish from it (“bearing”). But since then I have realized that both bearing and orientation can apply independently to gender as well as to sex, so in addition to the three things at the end of last paragraph, there’s three social parallels of them: your gender, your gender bearing (how you feel about how society categorizes you, are you comfortable with it or do you wish it was different and if so how), and your gender orientation (what gender you find attractive in others).
You can ignore all that stuff if you want and just say something like “I have a dick, I like having it, and I want to fuck some pussy; I don’t care how society genders me or the people I find attractive, anything is fine there.” That means you have male sex, cisphoric sexual bearing, heterosexual orientation, presumably masculine gender (society probably genders you as a man), but neutral gender bearing and gender orientation (you don’t care how society genders you or the people you find attractive). And that’s fine; under my scheme you can say that clearly in a way that doesn’t conflict with anybody else’s similarly clear expression of their own different biological, sociological, or mental states.
I have no issue with anyone being and thinking whatever they want. How people feel about themselves and their status and how they feel about their biology and their sexual bearing is personal to all.
People need to work out where they fit in society and live their lives.
The issue is when their concept of themselves conflicts with how the world is currently ordered. Then decisions regarding certain aspects of society need to be made.
Should they prioritize trans-women along with biological women?
I agree with you Malcolm, I don't think there are philosophical arguments that negate biology. The whole 'trans women are women' movement is an example of what goes wrong when fringe views define the entire movement. There are lots of trans people who do NOT take that premise seriously - I remember Contrapoints talking about this issue thoughtfully on her (very interesting) Youtube channel.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Alas, not the case. Some of this woke stuff is a bit like research on doomsday cultists - the day of reckoning arrives, passes, and a number of cultists become even more committed to the premise.
A lot of people believe the IOC standards for testosterone are some kind of legit science. And a lot of people keep saying 'it's a tiny percentage of people' which, of course, ignores the fact that this 'tiny percentage' will only grow as trans kids grow up expecting to be able to play.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Another failing of the fringe. Historically, cross-culturally, there have always been a small number of trans people - usually boys. Some societies are more tolerant, some less, but none of these people thought they were actually the other sex. That's a modern idea.
And of course, the genuinely trans people (likely a much smaller number than the number of people who claim the identity now) are getting hurt in the backlash.
Quoting Banno
That would likely do it! But I'd rather see that going forward than as an imposed requirement, which is likely cost-prohibitive.
But this isn't just an issue of live and let live. There are bad actors self-identifying as trans to take advantage of vulnerable women. In fact, the best criticism of trans access to women-only spaces like prisons and locker rooms comes from second-wave feminists.
The whole 'they are deluded and needed to be disabused of their delusion' argument you see sometimes on the right is a useless red herring to me. Focus on bad actors, common sense on the sporting field and harm protection for youth and everybody does better, trans and cis alike.
The only people I can trust on this topic at this point are those that can identify problems with a radical stance on trans issues in progressive society AND who empathize with and support genuine trans people.
Do you view puberty blockers for youth as moral?
And the problem here - is it that they take advantage of vulnerable women, or is it that they are trans?
Let's make sure we are addressing the right issue.
A drug is not immoral. It's a drug. What's done with it might be. Do you think that the State ought legislate to override the professional decisions of a child's carers and doctors, as well as parents, with a general piece of legislation that cannot take into account the context in which that decision is made?
Hi Banno,
Not sure you are reading what I write. I have no problem at all with trans people. Those bad actors are making things worse for trans people. If you care about trans people, you should care about bad actors and bad science.
Quoting Banno
So, the gold standard of trans affirmative care works for trans people who are actually trans. As in, children, usually boys, who insist they are the 'wrong gender', have felt that way since they were young, and it has persisted for years.
As opposed to this new cohort, sometimes referred to as suffering from ROGD (another stupid label), who are often teenage females.
So, this much smaller OG trans demographic group COULD benefit from puberty blockers, although the long term health risks here are only starting to emerge in visibility.
But a whole bunch of people who are autistic, or gay, or lesbian, or just different, have been convinced they are trans.
So, yes. The state should prevent puberty blockers for minors, as we prevent drugs that fail to work, haven't been tested, etc. Iatrogenesis. First do no harm.
Your analogy is false. Puberty blockers are not 'neutral drugs'. They are fad science, with limited evidence, that is being applied to large populations would not have been candidates for the approach in the initial development of the methodology.
I can back up any statement I make on this issue if you'd like.
But can you actually make a fact-based argument for puberty blockers?
Respectfully, until you do, it will appear to me that you are simply espousing dogma?
Hey man, I'm looking for a thoughtful conversation on this issue. But you have to actually know the data, the science, the psychology, the history, etc. This is not 'just' a philosophical issue.
So hit me with a fact-based argument!
Oh, I read your reply. But I haven't read this whole thread, for obvious reasons. You are quite presumptive in your response. That to me does not bode well for your claims of being open to argument.
I didn't use an analogy. Drugs do not do anything until they are used, and it is that use that has moral import.
As you say, "this much smaller OG trans demographic group COULD benefit from puberty blockers", but you support their not having access to these drugs? I disagree.
Now there is a rather large and growing body of evidence concerning puberty blockers. If you think the evidence is not there for examination, then you are wrong. If you think that this philosophy forum is the pace to evaluate that body of evidence, then you are wrong again.
If your move is just the rhetorical one of calling evidence with which you disagree, "dogma", then there is no point in showing you the evidence.
Is there a consensus? No. This is quite a different thing to there being no evidence. And in the mean time we have cases where puberty blockers will help remit pressing and substantive problems.
Not my move.
You have not presented any evidence. Nor have I. But I can back up any statement I have made in this thread with compelling evidence. Non-partisan evidence. Ask me for some, or present your own. Referring to evidence you are aware of is not presenting evidence.
Whereas every 'talking point' I've expressed is well documented.
Quoting Banno
Okay, share it. Or ask for mine, and then we can compare.
I have seen a great deal of evidence to the contrary. I believe I have been following the issue longer than you have, simply because you aren't saying things that show an understanding of the issue beyond a moral stance of 'live and let live'. Obviously, I could be wrong in my assumption, as you were in assuming I dismissed your 'evidence' (not evidence) as a rhetorical technique.
I know the history of how this trans affirmative stance came to be, have worked with trans students as a teacher, had gender questioning kids come to me for counseling, a lapsed progressive that saw the group think take hold, threatening kids I care about. I have skin in the game, and decades of experience. Do you?
The burden of proof is either on you, or for you to request from me.
As it stands, I don't think you have 'proof'.
Prove me wrong. Seriously, I do want a good conversation on this, and, frankly, anything I bother to write about here on TPF.
Quoting Banno
You compared a drug to gender affirmative treatment. I guess you mean just a 'puberty blocker' in which case the correct phrasing would have been something like 'an untested drug with potentially negative side effects'.
Quoting Banno
Come on man. You 'presume' I dislike trans people. That is categorically a worse presumption.
So the logic of your argument is much the same as that used to reject the fact of famine in Bangladesh: "You say thousands are starving, but can't name one".
Pretending that there is no evidence in support of the efficacy of puberty blockers is pretty poor.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Confirmation bias is an amazing thing.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Presumptive. And a poor argument. I was professionally involved with Trans children for decades.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
No I didn't. You are confabulating.
Quoting Jeremy Murray
I'm glad to hear you have "skin in the game", albeit from a distance.
I'm not seeing anything interesting accruing from this discussion.
Isn't there a danger there that someone who is serious about gender reassignment down the road could benefit from puberty blockers at adolescence and we're taking away that option?
They give them in early puberty and the consequences are permanent infertility and sexual dysfunction. That's not a decision an adolescent, still working out who they are, should be making.
That's a bit like saying that giving blood causes Myocardial infarction. It happens, but not often.
Again, this forum is not the place to evaluate the evidence, and we are not the people to do the evaluation. Instant expert syndrome is at play here.
What we can conclude is that that there are issues, and urge caution. In both directions.
No, every male who takes puberty blockers will be permanently infertile and will never have an orgasm.
Quoting Banno
Puberty blockers will eventually be illegal everywhere.
That's misinformation. Not wrong, but not quite right, either.
Quoting frank
Or improved so as to avoid these complications.
But again, Instant expert syndrome is at play here.
That would be due to the lack of evidence. So here is some!
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/yales-integrity-project-is-spreading
Do you know Jesse Singal's work? Perhaps some of the most important journalism on the subject happening now. He has paid a price for fearless reporting on this.
What is your opinion on the Cass report? In the above article, Singal outlines the results and the pro-affirmation communities dishonest responses to it.
If you do not know the Cass report, I think you are missing out on the most vital publication on the issue to date.
Here is more evidence. This one shows that this is not an exceedingly rare choice.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/over-5000-us-children-have-undergone-transgender-surgeries/
This is an opinion piece from a lesbian writer on gender non-conformity.
https://www.evakurilova.com/p/the-trans-movement-does-not-get-to?utm_source=multiple-personal-recommendations-email&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
Here is a piece on detransitioners, who often report feeling pressured, or rushed into, a decision to pursue medical interventions.
https://nationalpost.com/news/young-detransitioners-abandoned?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Stokes%20longread%20eblast%20-%20SUBS&utm_term=NP_PAID_Current
Here is journalist Benjamin Ryan, a gay man, another critical observer on the subject. He too has been targeted by virulent attacks for pursuing honesty.
https://benryan.substack.com/p/how-common-is-detransitioning
It took me ten minutes to come up with this evidence, and I can go on.
Quoting Banno
There isn't any for the demographic group I've described repeatedly, this new cohort of people identifying as trans, as opposed to the much smaller cohort for whom puberty blockers could be beneficial, a point I have made repeatedly to you.
Questions for you:
-is there a difference between people who self-identify as trans today, and the people who did so prior to that convergence of smart phones and social media in the early 2010s?
-is there any proof that puberty blockers are safe, long term?
-what do you make of detransitioners, a growing cohort, one that we will see much more of in the years to come?
-how much time should be spent on trans inclusion in public schools? My premise is that we spend a wildly disproportionate amount of time on the issue, which tends to worsen, rather than improve, outcomes for trans people. (and, again, I can back this up if you want to see evidence).
If you have a more specific question, one that requires effort beyond posting links, I could research an answer.
But you have yet to provide any evidence at all. You just keep referring to the 'fact' that evidence exists.
The only way to prove me wrong is to prove me wrong?
Quoting RogueAI
Yes! That's what is so frustrating about this radical affirmative stance. The people who actually need the radical interventions have been subsumed into a group that is most likely NOT TRANS.
I mean, the value of the approach is what made it the gold standard in the first place. But it only works for people who used to be viewed as 'gender dysphoric'. Early onset (pre-adolescence at a minimum), persistent expressions of dysphoria, most often biologically male.
Plus, psychology is a 'hard' social science, not an actual science (or, at least, an actual science beyond its infancy). Correlation not causation. The replication crisis. Frankly, as a lay social scientist, I no longer trust social scientists.
Quoting frank
The consequences are still not determined, but there is a substantial risk of both. Overstating the risks is not helpful.
I would argue that a few highly dysphoric, well-informed, well-vetted individuals should be making this sort of decision.
But a much, much smaller number than currently.
That's the thing. We already have the research to determine who is 'most trans'. There are two populations being discussed here. Legitimately trans people, and a bunch of people who have trusted clueless adults with well-meaning hearts and horrible historical legacies.
Quoting Banno
What good is philosophy if it does not help evaluate evidence? You might not be the person to do the evaluation, but a default to morally relativistic technocrats is moral failure in my eyes.
If you just want to spew philosophy, I know a bunch of Stalinists arguing with a bunch of Leninists down the street at the cafe.
Banno, I like you. You were one of the first people to welcome me to the forum. I engaged with you in that spirit.
If you care about trans people, you should want to engage with the best arguments that oppose your beliefs, no? I think I have presented some strong points. Do you have any?
You have worked with this population for decades, I would like to hear from that perspective, at least!
In the clinics in the US and the UK, kids 13.5 years old would receive 2 therapy sessions, and then be approved for puberty blockers, gender affirming hormones, and surgery. By the time they were through, all the trans women they had produced were permanently infertile and sexually dysfunctional. This info is coming from whistle blowers who worked in the clinics. It was a disaster.
Would you have a philosopher evaluate your cancer biopsy?
Quoting Jeremy Murray
Why so long? Slow internet connection? If you would be an instant expert you might need to upgrade your network.
I can do it too.
A good argument for better health care. Not for rejecting gender affirmation outright.
A person will have to be an adult to transition. I'm not arguing for that. It's a fact. That's where we're headed.
And you know this... from examining a crystal ball?
This thread is shite.
Wait and see.
You win either way. Well done.
But it is a decision their parents can make. Can we look at puberty blockers like certain drugs that have potential terrible side effects? Like chemotherapy? If I'm the parent of a trans adolescent who has been trans much of her life and is now suicidal over it, and the only thing keeping her going is the prospect of fully transitioning later on...aren't puberty blockers an option I should consider? You would take that away from me?
yeah, you quoted a google search. I quoted evidence I have read. Weak, man.
You say you care about trans people. So, show some evidence that that means more to you than having the 'right' position.
"Instant expert" is a pretty shitty ad hominem. Especially from the rhetoric police.
All you have to do is reply to ONE point of mine. But you can't / won't / somehow feel evidence is beneath you.
Share this thread with all the trans people you care about and ask them how they feel about the quality of your arguments. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with disagreement?
The 'shite' nature of this thread is coming from you.
...is a prevaricating term.
Absolutely. If she's suicidal, she needs to be in therapy. There is growing evidence that transitioning is not a solution to any mental health issues.
Yea, I'm such a prevaricator.
"Based on this review, there is an extremely low prevalence of regret in transgender patients after GAS."
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/
Doesn't that suggest that transititioning IS a possible solution?
What about prudence and restraint? Nuance? Context? Perhaps the wisest course is epistemic modesty: recognising complexity, acknowledging uncertainty, and striving for a response that does justice to both care and caution.
And in the mean time allowing some flexibility in order to accomodate the diversity of individual difficulties folk face.
Not blanket responses.
That's how a lot of philosophy is done. People argue their points and update their beliefs afterwards. If I'm looking to have my mind changed, I'm going to try and prove whatever point I have and see if it withstands the other person's attacks.
This research looks at regret related to transition surgery for all ages.
Do you have research that focuses exclusively on the post transition suicide rate for individuals who transitioned during adolescence?
Calling this thread "philosophy" is a stretch. More like mud wrestling.
And pretending that there is no evidence in support of the efficacy of puberty blockers is an act of bad faith.
No. What do you have?
And yet you have no way to know if this assertion of yours is true. You can't know why I came here.
More evidence from me.
https://unsafescience.substack.com/p/the-last-four-years-were-the-most
To make it clear that this is not me googling a search and pretending I'm a big boy now, here's a quote from my link that gets at why I find your arguments not just 'tedious', but immoral.
[i]The Tyranny of the Minority and the Spiral of Silence
Mill, it must be noted, is describing here a “tyranny of the majority,” whereas the “woke” social tyranny we have lately lived through and of which we are perhaps now breaking free may better be seen as a “tyranny of the minority.”
The economist Glenn Loury—writing in the Journal of Free Black Thought, the periodical of an organization some friends and I founded in 2020 to fight burgeoning woke racism and the tacit suppression in our public discourse of black viewpoint diversity—describes how a minority can exert tyrannical power over a majority:
German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann coined a term that describes this phenomenon: the “Spiral of Silence.” In a spiral of silence, when holding a certain view entails a stigma, then, for fear of being seen as having that view, most people stay silent. Thus, the masses believe they are alone or in a small minority of people with the stigmatized view, when in fact they are indeed in the majority, one of the masses.[/i]
You, sir, are contributing to the "Spiral of Silence".
And, again, sorry to be tedious, but you could just refute me with actual evidence.
Your refusal to produce any makes my contention that you have none more compelling.
Quoting RogueAI
How could there possibly be evidence, when there are no studies trying to follow up on this issue? When proponents of affirmative care do not track their patients? (As if doctors track their patients anyways? As if ideologues would consider the data?)
It is likely impossible to even have such evidence of a social trend that only emerged a decade ago. That's not how social science works. But I can hit you with evidence on my point if you'd like?
And yes, I anticipate Banno's dumb argument - there have always been trans people.
What there has not always been is an explosion of non-traditional trans-identifying girls, immediately after the smart phone became a ubiquitous portal to anxiety.
There are a LOT of detransitioners, and this is group is only going to grow, exponentially. There will be lawsuits. People will lose jobs. The whole trans-affirmative industry is a house of cards, and I feel genuinely sorry for the true believers in the bunch - they are the ones who have landed on the wrong side of history.
All the evidence on trans suicide suggests that their are complicating factors, and that trans identity alone is not in any way causal. It will take me more time to find this evidence, since Google does not allow for this search.
But if you guys want some evidence against the idea that 'you can have a living son or a dead daughter', I can definitely find it with some time.
The suicide rate for post transitioners is a lot higher than for the non-trans population of the same age. I'll have to go back and find it if you're interested.
In the meantime, David Bell, is a good source for understanding what went wrong in gender affirming care for youths, and what we learned in the process.
I'm here. I'm making noise.
While your passion is apparent, I've not been persuaded to reconsider my view. Your tone is confrontational rather than enquiring, your evidence one-sided and your logic dubious.
Cheers.
I asked you over and over again for either evidence or sophisticated argument. That's enquiry.
You sat here trolling people with comments that refused to reveal your position, or any evidence? That's confrontational.
My evidence is one-sided? How would you know? You didn't read or engage with any of it.
My logic dubious?
Leftish logic bro Banno? makes a bunch of pat rhetorical objections, fails to engage with anything?
All you had to do, at any point, was engage me with evidence.
You are refusing to do so. I assume that is because you can't. The evidence of our exchange reads for itself.
Listen man, sincerely, and no more trolling you back.
If you care about trans people, as you assert, and I believe you, steelman-style, then you need to know a hell of a lot more about trans issues than you do.
Some of those trans people you care about are going to call you out for not having had a critical eye on the single greatest failure of our medical system of the 21st century.
Respectfully, I'm not saying 'cheers' back to you. I do not enjoy lazy disingenuity.
And ignored the reasons given for not doing so. I didn't come here for a mud wrestle, a he-said-she-said yawn fest. Your accusations of trolling are feeble, your ad homs hackneyed.
Basically you are being a bit of a dick. Perhaps your aim was to change my mind, but the result has been to reinforce my view of an unreasoning, wilfully ill-informed and ideologically driven opposition to trans discussions.
Keep going, if you like. encourage me to admire your views even less.
Neat analysis. Cool. Makes a mess of the conservative desire to force everyone into one of two fixed boxes because complexity and ambiguity make them uncomfortable.
I can see why you might prefer to maintain some distance from this discussion.
CASS review
You're right. Puberty blockers alone don't cause infertility. In combination with gender affirming hormones they're more likely to, but It's really the GAS surgery that ends fertility and sexual function. I misunderstood that.
Puberty blockers were outlawed in Britain for people under 18 because there's no evidence that they accomplish what they're supposed to. Other countries including the US are following their lead.
your reason for not doing so is that you 'think I'm a jerk' (have no evidence). You could prove me wrong at any point by providing evidence. You don't, so you continue with the sad ad hominems and the talking points delivered to you by groupthink.
Quoting Banno
I couldn't care less what you think of me, and you have no idea what my views are.
I view you as practice. Fish in a barrel, although I feel slightly guilty actually spelling that out. I'm not being kind. You are not being kind. At least my premise isn't destroying the lives of young people.
Do you actually work with trans people? Are you simply lying about that? I am forced to ask you that question because you refuse to provide evidence of anything you say.
Quoting Banno
So, is it fair to conclude that you are talking about me here?
I am not conservative, nor do I believe in the 'two fixed boxes' premise. As I have stated and written in my responses to you.
Quoting Banno
My goal is to improve outcomes for young people. And to improve outcomes for trans people. I'm not sure I'm the one with the unclear goals?
Your goal appears to be conforming morally, as it is written, so that conformists like yourself can feel good about themselves while doing nothing.
"wilfully ill-informed and ideologically driven opposition"
you must be a mediocre university professor? Or just, a shitty person?
quantum mechanics of gender my ass.
Thanks for being candid. I have a bit of an issue with legislating such "protections". Probably a hang over from studying Popperian ad hoc social engineering. I prefer to see the decisions made "locally" than "globally", except in the case of evidence-based demonstrated harm. The first finding in CASS is - lack of such an evidence base. Then noting "conflicting views among clinicians regarding appropriate treatment."
[s]The recommendations lean in the right direction.[/s] (edit)
Quoting Banno
it's working.
I agree. They basically transitioned a lot of kids who weren't actually transgender. That will not be happening in the future because it will be against the law.
Quoting Banno
You've got a fairly profound misapprehension about how medine works. You'll catch up eventually.
Not too keen on that.
Quoting frank
I'm involved in health consumer advocacy hereabouts, so I hope not - and doubt it, since I get to hear more than my share of horror stories. I do hope for the best, though. Evidence based practice is in the consumer's interest. Legislation tends to be either misguided or too slow.
You have an issue with legislating against an ineffective, toxic, destructive medical practice? Big fan of leeching and bleeding the patient, are you?
Think medical science is a social construct?
"Popperian ad hoc social engineering".
These words mean nothing unless you provide examples. (and yes I know what you meant). That's an appeal to authority that you don't have.
Quoting Banno
Banno, this issue is likely going to reverse in the next few years. You obviously live in the US or Canada, because the rest of the world, including the gold standard countries and the gold standard practitioners of affirmative care models, everyone credible already knows yours is, at best, an amoral stance that got things wrong.
At worst, your stance is 'evil', in the utilitarian sense.
And frankly, if I were a trans person reading your 'defense' of trans people, I'd be offended too.
Quoting Banno
Right. "Health consumer advocacy hereabouts".
So, not even an expert in the field you claim to be expert in
Dude. It's already against the law in the UK. 27 US states have outlawed it. A federal ban is coming in the US. It's against the law in freaking Sweden.
Quoting Banno
Banno. We don't approve medical treatments up until they're shown to be dangerous. We trial them. Rule 1 of medicine: do not experiment on 13 year old girls.
If it's not approved, it's against the law.
In January, the Queensland Government issued a Health Service Directive that prohibits public hospitals and health services from initiating puberty blockers (Stage 1 treatment) or gender-affirming hormones (Stage 2 treatment) for new patients under 18 diagnosed with gender dysphoria. This directive was done following concerns about prescribing practices at a clinic in Cairns and is pending the outcome of an independent review.
Causing a bit of a stink. So should governments be permitted to overrule on such issues apparently on religious and ideological grounds, or is it better to leave it to those doing the work.
See The fight to overturn Queensland’s trans ban
Quoting David Bell
Agreed.
And honestly, I find it hard to wrap my head around the absolute shit tsunami of suffering that has been created by all of these invasive medications and procedures on children who may very well have been 'going through a phase'.
In a hundred years, people will be looking back at this in the same way we look back at lobotomies and witch burnings - like we are primitive savages. Perhaps we are.
Quoting Michael
You're failing to provide reasoning as to why bathrooms should be divided by gender when they have been divided by sex AND sex and gender are distinct. Why would you even think that bathrooms should be divided by gender if sex and gender are distinct concepts? It's no different than asserting that bathrooms should be divided by species. Sex and species are distinct concepts, as are sex and eating ice cream, sex and astronauts, etc. Sex is distinct from a great many things, (bathrooms could just as easily be divided by those that are eating ice cream and those that aren't or by those that are astronauts and those that aren't), so why would you think bathrooms should be divided by gender rather than the great many other things sex is distinct from? What is the relationship between sex and gender that is different than the relationship between sex and being an astronaut? What is the relationship between sex and gender?
Quoting Michael
You didn't because you keep asserting that gender and sex are distinct but make statements like this where you are grouping sex and gender together.
Quoting Michael
If we're talking about making changes to bathrooms to accommodate certain beings, then the same can be done for animals by creating entrances that enable animals to enter the public restroom more easily. You're avoiding the question as to why you would think of gender when discussing sex if they are both distinct.
Sounds overly complicated, like you're performing mental gymnastics here.
Why are we even talking about sex in a discussion about gender if they are distinct? It seems to me that when a trans person feels uncomfortable with how society categorizes them it is when society is categorizing them by their sex, not their gender. To categorize someone by their gender would be sexist.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
frank is asking you.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
This where it started. I'm not sure what your comparison was intended to show by way of 'fundamental difference', but it was ill judged and unhelpful. Obviously, since race is socially constructed, it makes for a very poor comparison with sex differentiation to the extent that you are arguing that it is absolute and inalterable in every case. On the other hand, to the extent that gender is also socially constructed, the comparison can be made to some profit, but then, in terms of gender, a trans woman exactly is a woman, just as one who "passes" for white exactly is white.
A black person isn't trying to escape either kind of recognition. A black person says:
1. recognize the biological truth that I'm human, just like you.
2. recognize the social construction of blackness, and notice your own latent assumptions about me because I fit that category. Now refer back to 1.
The trans woman is saying:
1. ignore the biological facts, that I'm a man
2. treat me as the social construction I elected.
There was a time when I tried to understand what the trans-woman is saying. At this point, my answer is this: I'll treat you as a human. I'll avoid using pronouns, because I've got other things on my mind than how you want to be addressed. . As for sports and restrooms, biology is important in both cases. Be prepared to engage according to your biology.
I answered him.
Quoting unenlightened
Ok.
At what point is a person white or black?
He derailed his own thread by misinterpreting my point which was only to say that Trans women are not women. (He disagrees with me on that one) I only mentioned black people and homosexuals because, I thought , (wrongly) that someone else was equating the treatment of blacks, homosexuals and trans people as the same. My point is that there is a fundamental difference with trans people.
Your question is a great one. I am a white European and I have friends from Nigeria who are black. Where the line stops from being black to white is dependent upon definition and (I assume) how society views the person. Luckily, where I live it doesn’t matter because it’s a nice part of UK where everyone gets on together.
You might as well ask 'at what height is a person tall or short?' Make up an answer in situations when you need to decide that is appropriate to the situation. Some fairground rides have a minimum height for safety reasons, and this is set by the physicality of the ride not the person. At the make-up counter, various shades are available Hairdressers have various products available to more ore less nappy hair.
The question I think one ought to ask as a philosopher is "Why do you ask?" And the answer mostly given in this thread and others comes down to 'rape culture'. Allow me to pontificate a little:
Patriarchal capitalism requires rape culture in order to control the sexual activity of women. The sexuality of women has to be controlled so that the succession of the kingship, or lordship, or property owner can be secured to his offspring and not another's. It must therefore be the case that for a woman to have sex with anyone but her owner is a disaster worse than death. Rape being established as the unspeakable trauma from which there is no recovery, by means of strong taboos on nakedness and so on, the control of women on safety grounds becomes justified, and the idea of 'unwanted pregnancy' comes into being.
The whole social importance of sex springs from the simple fact that men cannot know their own children from those of another except by controlling (protecting) their women. Thus virginity is a virtue in a woman, and a weakness in a man. Consider any aspect of cultural sexual differentiation in terms of this simple explanation, and see if it is explained. Foot-binding? Keeps the women close to home. etc.
I don’t think bathrooms should be divided by gender. I think bathrooms should be unisex.
But those who are argue that bathrooms should be divided by gender argue for one or more of the following:
1. Trans men are uncomfortable using the women’s bathroom and trans women are uncomfortable using the men’s bathroom
2. Trans men face greater risk of abuse using the women’s bathroom and trans women face greater risk of abuse using the men’s bathroom
3. Cis men do not face greater risk of abuse when trans men use the men’s bathroom and cis women do not face greater risk of abuse when trans women use the women’s bathroom.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Gender roles and identities are almost always determined by sex.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Allowing trans men to use the men’s bathroom and trans women to use the women’s bathroom does not require or entail that we allow animals to use our bathrooms. You’re making the same incoherent slippery slope argument that people like Mike Johnson use against same-sex marriage. It’s absurd and not worth addressing.
Trans women are not biological women. We all agree on that.
The disagreement stems over whether or not "women" always means "biological women". The claim being made is that there is a distinction between sex and gender, that the terms "man" and "woman" are also used to classify gender, and that people can be women in the sense of sex but men in the sense of gender.
And then the further (political) claim is that in many cases if we are to separate people according to whether they are a man or a women, it is more sensible to separate according to gender rather than sex.
I think eventually it becomes a basic rudimentary argument absent of any other potentially bias-inducing circumstance. I.E. Yes, I'm a human being, some human beings are born male, female, smart, incredibly strong, or yes even disabled. Just because one person (or perhaps many) were born almost frighteningly gifted (Nikola Tesla, Nietzsche, Socrates, etc.) doesn't mean you can just "identify" as what some people are for no other reason than because you feel like doing so. Can you? :chin: It's a fair question. Nothing to do with biases or scientific knowledge at all, just as a general concept.
Trans men aren’t identifying as someone with XY chromosomes or as someone who was born with a penis.
When they say “I am a man” they are not saying anything about their biology.
What are they saying?
That their gender identity is male. Gender identity is psychological/social/cultural, not biological.
But what does that mean?
Biological men and biological women tend to have a different kind of psychology. The way they think and feel and behave is different. These differences are separate from any biological differences like chromosomes and genitals (even if they most often correlate), and these psychological differences factor into how society and culture is structured.
Sometimes someone who is biologically female develops the kind of psychology typically associated with biological men, and so they identify as a man in that psychological sense, and wish to be treated as a man. “Being treated as a man” is a social and cultural thing, not a biological thing, and doesn’t mean the same thing as “being treated as having XY chromosomes and a penis”.
And this is the problem with anti-trans policies. They don’t care about people as people; they don’t care about how people think and feel. They just think of people as being biological machines, and say that everyone with one set of chromosomes/genitals should be treated one way and everyone with another set of chromosomes/genitals should be treated another way. It’s dehumanising.
:100:
I am aware that there are differences on average between the sexes but it is not clear cut at all. Men on average are more aggressive but not significantly and there are plenty of non aggressive men.
What kind of differences constitute a male v female?
Quoting Michael
Surely that is a woman who wished to be treated as a man. Not a man. I treat everyone as I see fit and how my subconscious dictates. If I see a transman then I will interact as I see fit. What does treated like a man entail? It can be different for everyone. I tailor my conversation etc to who I'm speaking to.
It’s a biological woman who is psychologically male, and wishes to be treated how society and culture usually treats those who are psychologically male.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
You could start with sex differences in psychology.
We can go around and around in circles. We all have a few wishes we would like to be granted but why do people need to grant these wishes? Also, I treat people how I see fit. I have some female friends who are treated like one of the blokes. I also, have male friends who are treated with a little more decorum.
How does society and culture treat a male?
Quoting Michael
Wikipedia? You can do better than that, surely?
You’ve kind of answered your own question.
I don't think society and culture treats people like I treat my mates. There would be a lot of upset people.
The point I am making is that you clearly understand that in many cases someone’s sex determines the way that they are treated, but that this treatment has nothing really to do with their sex at all - hence when you treat your female friends “like one of the blokes” you are not treating them as “having a penis”.
Obviously the wider society and culture is not identical to your friendship group, but the same principle is at play.
The point I'm making is that in 2025 people can be whatever they like. No sexist tropes are needed to define a person. So in sports and women's exclusive spaces biology trumps feelings. Everything else, people can be what they want. Like ladies being treated for who they are not what they are.
How do you get laid?
Okay, but sex differences in psychology are still a real thing, and in a minority of cases someone can have the psychology typically associated with the opposite sex.
And for good or bad gender norms still exist in today’s society.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
Why?
Usually just spending time with friends and it just happens one night.
Could you see it just happening with a trans woman?
If they’re attractive and have had bottom surgery, sure.
I think you're probably rare.
Okay, not really sure what the purpose of this line of questioning was supposed to be?
I was just thinking about what Malcolm said. I don't treat women differently than men for the most part. The only time it really shows up is in dating and intimacy. There's a huge difference between having sex with a woman and with a trans-woman, that being that the real woman can have an orgasm. With the transwoman, it's just me?
The point is that in the one way it really makes any difference, there's a huge difference.
Even as a heterosexual man I’m sure I wouldn’t be sexually interested in the majority of cisgender women.
So I still don’t really get the point being made. Regardless of who I have - or want to have - sex with, there is such a thing as psychological/social/cultural gender, and despite its common congruence with biological sex they are distinct things.
Sure. I don't have a problem with that. I don't see gender as being all that significant in the way I treat people though. Biology does make a big difference.
What is the mechanism for someone to gave the opposite psychology to their sex? I’m intrigued.
Quoting Michael
Because men should be excluded from women’s sport because they have a competitive advantage. A huge competitive advantage. Shall we start there?
And on that we agree, as I’ve mentioned before.
But you also mentioned other “women exclusive spaces”, which I assume you mean to be spaces exclusive to biological women.
What such spaces are these, and why do they exist? Perhaps some of these spaces ought be spaces exclusive to gendered women rather than just to biological women.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
That’s an open question. As the Wikipedia article I referenced earlier explains, it’s not clear how much of our psychology - whether concerning gender or other things - is determined by nature and how much by nurture.
And of anything determined by nature it’s not clear what the biological determinants are. Hormones likely play a large part in how the brain develops, which would explain the strong correlation between one set of chromosomes and one broad type of psychology. But the existence of transgender people, non-binary people, and gender non-conforming people (including effeminate men and masculine women) shows that other factors are at play.
There’s likely no single thing. Biology and society are very complex, and so neurological and psychological development also complex.
So for sport they aren’t women but they are women for other purposes?
So women already have exclusive places. Bathrooms, changing rooms and shelters for victims of male violence. Do you think men should be excluded from these places?
Exactly and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
For sport we separate people according to biological sex, regardless of gender identity, but for some other things we separate people according to gender identity, regardless of biological sex.
Quoting Malcolm Parry
I don’t think all biological men should be excluded from women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, or shelters. I think transgender women, especially those who have medically transitioned, should use the women’s bathrooms, changing rooms, and shelters, just as I think that transgender men, especially those who have medically transitioned, should be excluded from them.
But most should?
Cisgender men, sure.
So we disagree on virtually nothing. One small point. I think no man is a woman. Maybe trans women could do the decent thing and not invade women’s spaces.
And by this you just mean that no biological man is a biological woman, which everyone accepts.
But as I mentioned before, the terms “man” and “woman” are not only used to refer to biological sex; they are also used to refer to gender identity.
Even if sex and gender identity are usually congruent, for some it isn’t: for some their sex is male and their gender is female and for some their sex is female and their gender is male.
You guys are right. The alarming thing about woke dogma is how much it hurts the groups is claims to help by fueling tension, by complicating or obscuring, sometimes intentionally, because of the moral 'righteousness' of the cause.
It falls simply under the oppressor / oppressed rubric. Hence "Queers of Palestine". Hence BLM donating millions to trans groups. People justifying murder.
But these are just extreme examples.
A lot of people involved in tran-affirmative care are true believers, who think they are helping trans people.
It's the everyday, run-of-the-mill, banal expressions of ideas like 'gender is a spectrum' that are being missed as a problem. A fine sentiment, some inexact social science around it, but the ubiquity of it is making young, gender-questioning people think they have found a solution. This skews the population, rendering the interventions unproven. The interventions, based on highly motivated and screened populations, are still presented as if they are proven.
Ben Ryan continues to do great journalism on this, despite the risks, he's been targeted for cancelation campaigns for years.
"Diagnoses of gender dysphoria in English minors attending primary care practices increased by 50-fold from 2011 to 2021, according to a new study".
https://benryan.substack.com/p/gender-dysphoria-surges-50-fold-in
50 fold?
Something is wrong, and it can't simply be explained with the 'stigma has been reduced' argument.
https://benryan.substack.com/p/1-in-1000-privately-insured-17-year
"By age 17, about 1 in 1,000 privately insured minors were receiving gender-transition hormones between 2018 and 2022. This broke down to about 140 per 100,000 natal girls taking testosterone and 82 per 100,000 natal boys taking estrogen by this final year before teens hit the age of majority".
just the fact that it is natal girls in the majority, not boys like in previous generations, throughout human history, across cultures and continents. This sort of outlier screams for exploration. But the only 'screaming' we here is from the faux-woke, accusing journalists of bias.
I can't take anyone seriously on this issue who can't at least acknowledge there are major concerns with the radical-affirmation model. But again, it's because they view it a moral imperative, by any means necessary.
Another great journalist on the subject, talking about an active campaign to hide data contrary to woke trans narratives.
https://www.voidifremoved.co.uk/p/new-england-journal-of-misinformation
This is not simply a 'philosophical' issue. Kids lives are being ruined. Legitimately trans kids are been targeted because so many act in bad faith on behalf of trans communities. Do trans soldiers recently targeted for job losses in the military feel good about radical trans acitivsts?
There is nothing 'kind' or 'on the right side of history' in woke activists medicalizing vulnerable kids.
You can repeat this mantra as much as you like.
It’s not a mantra. It’s an accurate description of the English language. The nouns “man” and “woman” are not each just used in a single way.
You believe whatever you like. I’m happy to exclude trans women from women’s spaces. Luckily the UK law and most sports bodies are catching up with me.
Neither UK law nor sporting organisations dictate what English language words mean.
They can dictate who is allowed to do what, but that’s not what’s being discussed.
That is exactly what is being discussed because that is the only thing that matters. As long as men don’t access women’s spaces you can call them whatever you like.